Assistance to the Commission on Technological Socio-Economic and Cost-Benefit Assessment Related to Exemptions from the Substance Restrictions in Electrical and Electronic Equipment:

Study to assess renewal requests for 29 RoHS 2 Annex III exemptions [no. l(a to e -lighting purpose), no. l(f - special purpose), no. 2(a), no. 2(b)(3), no. 2(b)(4), no. 3, no. 4(a), no. 4(b), no. 4(c), no. 4(e), no. 4(f), no. 5(b), no. 6(a), no. 6(b), no. 6(c), no. 7(a), no. 7(c) - I, no. 7(c) - II, no. 7(c) - IV, no. 8(b), no. 9, no. 15, no. 18b, no. 21, no. 24, no. 29, no. 32, no. 34, no. 37]

Carl-Otto Gensch, Oeko-Institut Yifaat Baron, Oeko-Institut Markus Blepp, Oeko-Institut Katja Moch, Oeko-Institut Susanne Moritz, Oeko-Institut Otmar Deubzer, Fraunhofer Institute for Reliability and Microintegration, IZM

07 June 2016

Report for The European Commission

Prepared by Oeko-Institut e.V., Institute for Applied Ecology and Fraunhofer-Institut IZM for Environmental and Reliability Engineering Oeko-Institut e.V. Fraunhofer-Institut IZM Freiburg Head Office, P.O. Box 1771 Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25 79017 Freiburg, Germany 13355 Berlin, Germany Tel.:+49 (0) 761 – 4 52 95-0 Tel.: +49 (0)30 / 46403-157 Fax +49 (0) 761 – 4 52 95-288 Fax: +49 (0)30 / 46403-131 Web: www.oeko.de Web: www.fraunhofer.de

Approved by: Adrian Gibbs, Eunomia Carl-Otto Gensch, Oeko Institute e.V (Peer Review) (Project Director) …………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….

Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd 37 Queen Square, Bristol, BS1 4QS, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 9172250 Fax: +44 (0)8717 142942 Web: www.eunomia.co.uk

Acknowledgements: We would like to express our gratitude towards stakeholders who have taken an active role in the contribution of information concerning the requests for exemption handled in the course of this project.

Disclaimer: Eunomia Research & Consulting, Oeko-Institut and Fraunhofer Institute IZM have taken due care in the preparation of this report to ensure that all facts and analysis presented are as accurate as possible within the scope of the project. However no guarantee is provided in respect of the information presented, and Eunomia Research & Consulting, Oeko-Institut and Fraunhofer Institute IZM are not responsible for decisions or actions taken on the basis of the content of this report.

ii

Executive Summary

Under Framework Contract no. ENV.C.2/FRA/2011/0020, a consortium led by Eunomia Research & Consulting was requested by DG Environment of the European Commission to provide technical and scientific support for the evaluation of exemption requests under the new RoHS 2 regime. The work has been undertaken by Oeko-Institut and Fraunhofer Institute IZM, and has been peer reviewed by Eunomia Research & Consulting.

E.1.0 Background and Objectives

The RoHS Directive 2011/65/EU entered into force on 21 July 2011 and led to the repeal of Directive 2002/95/EC on 3 January 2013. The Directive can be considered to have provided for two regimes under which exemptions could be considered, RoHS 1 (the former Directive 2002/95/EC) and RoHS 2 (the current Directive 2011/65/EU). · The scope covered by the Directive is now broader as it covers all EEE (as referred to in Articles 2(1) and 3(1)); · The former list of exemptions has been transformed in to Annex III and may be valid for all product categories according to the limitations listed in Article 5(2) of the Directive. Annex IV has been added and lists exemptions specific to categories 8 and 9; · The RoHS 2 Directive includes the provision that applications for exemptions have to be made in accordance with Annex V. However, even if a number of points are already listed therein, Article 5(8) provides that a harmonised format, as well as comprehensive guidance – taking the situation of SMEs into account – shall be adopted by the Commission; and · The procedure and criteria for the adaptation to scientific and technical progress have changed and now include some additional conditions and points to be considered. These are detailed below. The new Directive details the various criteria for the adaptation of its Annexes to scientific and technical progress. Article 5(1)(a) details the various criteria and issues that must be considered for justifying the addition of an exemption to Annexes III and IV: · The first criterion may be seen as a threshold criterion and cross-refers to the REACH Regulation (1907/2006/EC). An exemption may only be granted if it does not weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by REACH; · Furthermore, a request for exemption must be found justifiable according to one of the following three conditions:

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions i

o Substitution is scientifically or technically impracticable, meaning that a substitute material, or a substitute for the application in which the restricted substance is used, is yet to be discovered, developed and, in some cases, approved for use in the specific application;

o The reliability of a substitute is not ensured, meaning that the probability that EEE using the substitute will perform the required function without failure for a period of time comparable to that of the application in which the original substance is included, is lower than for the application itself;

o The negative environmental, health and consumer safety impacts of substitution outweigh the benefits thereof. · Once one of these conditions is fulfilled, the evaluation of exemptions, including an assessment of the duration needed, shall consider the availability of substitutes and the socio-economic impact of substitution, as well as adverse impacts on innovation, and life cycle analysis concerning the overall impacts of the exemption; and · A new aspect is that all exemptions now need to have an expiry date and that they can only be renewed upon submission of a new application. The current study presented here, evaluates a total of 29 exemption renewal requests for existing exemptions approaching their expiry date.

E.2.0 Key Findings – Overview of the Evaluation Results

The exemption requests covered in this project and the applicants concerned, as well as the final recommendations and proposed expiry dates are summarised in Table 1-1. The reader is referred to the corresponding section of this report for more details on the evaluation results. The – not legally binding – recommendations for the requests for the renewal of exemptions (29 RoHS 2 Annex III exemptions: no. l(a to e - lighting purpose), no. l(f - special purpose), no. 2(a), no. 2(b)(3), no. 2(b)(4), no. 3, no. 4(a), no. 4(b), no. 4(c), no. 4(e), no. 4(f), no. 5(b), no. 6(a), no. 6(b), no. 6(c), no. 7(a), no. 7(c) - I, no. 7(c) - II, no. 7(c) - IV, no. 8(b), no. 9, no. 15, no. 18b, no. 21, no. 24, no. 29, no. 32, no. 34, no. 37) were submitted to the EU Commission by Oeko-Institut and have already been published at the EU CIRCA website on 27 June 2016. So far, the Commission has not adopted any revision of the Annex to Directive 2011/65/EU based on these recommendations.

ii

Table 1 -1: Overview of the exemption requests, associated recommendations and expiry dates

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation n. 1 Mercury in single-capped (compact) Mercury in single-capped fluorescent lamps not exceeding (per (compact) fluorescent lamps burner): not exceeding (per burner)

The maximum 1(a) For general transition period lighting purposes < 30 For Cat. 8 and Cat. 9: should be granted to W: 5 mg (a) For general lighting 21 July 2021; other categories 1(b) For general purposes < 30 W: 2.5 mg For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: (18 months); lighting purposes ≥ 30 (b) For general lighting 21 July 2023; The COM should W and < 50 W: 5 mg purposes ≥ 30 W and < 50 NARVA Lichtquellen consider adopting 1(c) For general W: 3.5 mg For Sub-Cat. industrial: GmbH + Co. KG measures to limit lighting purposes ≥ 50 21 July 2024 LightingEurope product availability a to e W and < 150 W: 5 mg to B2B transactions. (lighting) 1(d) For general lighting purposes ≥ For Cat. 5: 21 July 150 W: 15 mg 2019; 1(e) For general (c) For general lighting For Cat. 8 and Cat. 9: lighting purposes with purposes ≥ 50 W and < 150 21 July 2021; circular or square W: 5 mg For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: structural shape and (d) For general lighting 21 July 2023; tube diameter ≤ 17 purposes ≥ 150 W: 15 mg mm: 7 mg For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions iii

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation

7 mg may be used per burner until 31.12.2019, 5 mg may be used per burner (e) For general lighting after 31.12.2019 purposes with circular or For Cat. 5: 21 July 2019 square structural shape and For Cat. 8 and Cat. 9: tube diameter ≤ 17 mm 21 July 2021 For Sub- Cat. 8 in-vitro: 21 July 2023 For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024

Mercury in single-capped (compact) fluorescent

lamps not exceeding (per burner)

The maximum transition period NARVA Lichtquellen should be granted f (special 1(f) For special GmbH + Co. KG for other purpose) purposes: 5 mg LightingEurope applications and (f)-I For lamps designed to other categories (18 emit light in the ultra-violet For Cat. 5: 21 July 2021 months); Integrating spectrum: 5 mg this entry into a UV lamp exemption should be considered.

iv

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation

For Cat. 8 and Cat. 9: 21 July 2021; The COM should consider adopting (f)-II For special purposes: 5 For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: measures to limit mg 21 July 2023; product availability For Sub-Cat. 9 to B2B transactions. industrial: 21 July 2024 Mercury in double-capped Mercury in double-capped linear linear fluorescent lamps for n. 2 (a) fluorescent lamps for general lighting general lighting purposes purposes not exceeding (per lamp): not exceeding (per lamp) (1) Tri-band phosphor For Cat. 5, 8 & 9: with normal lifetime 1) Tri-band phosphor with 21 July 2021; normal lifetime and a tube For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: and a tube diameter < 9 mm (e.g. T2): 5 mg diameter < 9 mm (e.g. T2): 4 21 July 2023; mg For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024 (2) Tri-band phosphor NARVA Lichtquellen (2) Tri-band phosphor with with normal lifetime GmbH + Co. KG normal lifetime and a tube and a tube diameter ≥ LightingEurope diameter ≥ 9 mm and ≤ 17 (1-5) 9 mm and ≤ 17 mm mm (e.g. T5): For Cat. 8 & 9: 21 July The maximum (e.g. T5): 5 mg 3 mg 2021; transition period (3) Tri-band phosphor (3) Tri-band phosphor with should be granted For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: with normal lifetime normal lifetime and a tube for other 21 July 2023; and a tube diameter diameter > 17 mm and ≤ 28 applications and > 17 mm and ≤ 28 mm mm (e.g. T8): 3.5 mg For Sub-Cat. 9 other categories (e.g. T8): 5 mg (4) Tri-band phosphor with industrial: 21 July 2024 (18 months); normal lifetime and a tube (4) Tri-band phosphor diameter > 28 mm (e.g. with normal lifetime T12): 3.5 mg

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions v

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation and a tube diameter > 28 mm (e.g. T12): For Cat. 5, 8 & 9: 21 July 2021; 5 mg (5) Tri-band phosphor with For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: long lifetime 21 July 2023; (≥ 25 000 h): 5 mg (5) Tri-band phosphor For Sub-Cat. 9 with long lifetime industrial: 21 July 2024 (≥ 25 000 h): 8 mg 2(b) Mercury in other fluorescent lamps not exceeding (per lamp)

(3) Non-linear tri-band For Cat. 5: 21 July NARVA Lichtquellen phosphor lamps with 2019; n. 2 (b) (3) GmbH + Co. KG tube diameter > 15 For Cat. 8 & 9: 21 July LightingEurope (3) Non-linear tri-band mm (e.g. T9) 2021; phosphor lamps with tube For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: diameter > 17 mm (e.g. T9) 21 July 2023; For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024

For Cat. 8 & 9: 21 July (4) Lamps for other (I) Lamps for other general 2021; general lighting and lighting and special purposes For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: n. 2 (b) (4) special purposes (e.g. LightingEurope (e.g. induction lamps); 21 July 2023; induction lamps): 15 mg may be used per lamp 15 mg per lamp after 31 December 2011 For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024

vi

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation

Integrating this entry (II) Lamps emitting light in into a UV lamp the non-visible spectrum: For Cat. 5: 21 July 2021 exemption should be 15 mg per lamp considered.

(III) Emergency lamps: For Cat. 5: 21 July 2021 15 mg per lamp

(IV) Mercury in other fluorescent special purpose For Cat. 5: lamps not specifically 21 January 2019 mentioned in this Annex: 15mg per lamp Mercury in cold cathode Mercury in cold cathode fluorescent fluorescent lamps and lamps and external electrode external electrode n.3 fluorescent lamps (CCFL and EEFL) for fluorescent lamps (CCFL and special purposes not exceeding (per EEFL) for special purposes lamp): not exceeding (per lamp):

(a) Short length (≤ 500 (a) Short length (≤ 500 mm), LightingEurope mm): 3.5 mg per lamp 3,5 mg may be used per For Cat. 8 & 9: (b) Medium length (> lamp; 21 July 2021; 500 mm and ≤ 1 500 (b) Medium length (> 500 For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro:

mm): 5 mg per lamp mm and ≤ 1 500 mm), 5 mg 21 July 2023; (c) Long length (> 1 may be used per lamp; For Sub-Cat. 9 500 mm): 13 mg per (c) Long length (> 1 500 mm) industrial: 21 July 2024 lamp 13 mg may be used per lamp

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions vii

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation (d) Short length (≤ 500 mm), 3,5 mg may be used per lamp in EEE placed on the market before 22 July 2016* (e) Medium length (> 500 mm and ≤ 1 500 mm), *or before the EC’s 5 mg may be used per lamp For Cat. 5: 21 July 2021 decision date on this in EEE placed on the market exemptions renewal before 22 July 2016* (f) Long length (> 1 500 mm) 13 mg may be used per lamp in EEE placed on the market before 22 July 2016* (g) For back-lighting liquid Alternative a: For Cat. crystal displays, not To be considered 5: 21 July 2021; exceeding 5 mg per lamp, should Ex. 35 of or used in industrial monitoring Annex IV be Alternative b: For Sub- and control instruments transferred to Cat. industrial: placed on the market before Annex III 21 July 2024 22 July 2017 4(a)-I: Mercury in low pressure non-phosphor The maximum coated discharge lamps, transition period NARVA Lichtquellen where the application should be granted Mercury in other low pressure discharge n.4 (a) GmbH + Co. KG requires the main range of For Cat. 5: 21 July 2021 for other lamps (per lamp): 15 mg per lamp LightingEurope the lamp-spectral output to applications and be in the UV spectrum; up to other categories 15 mg mercury may be used (18 months); per lamp.

viii

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation

For Cat. 8 and Cat. 9: 4(a)-II: Mercury in other low 21 July 2021; pressure discharge lamps For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro:

(15 mg may be used per 21 July 2023; lamp) For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024

Mercury in High Pressure Mercury in High Pressure Sodium Sodium (vapour) lamps for (vapour) lamps for general lighting general lighting purposes n.4 (b) purposes not exceeding (per burner) in not exceeding (per burner) lamps with improved colour rendering in lamps with improved index Ra > 60: colour rendering index Ra > 60:

For Cat. 5, 8 & 9: 21 (I) P ≤ 155 W; 30 mg may be July 2021; used per burner For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro:

21 July 2023; LightingEurope (II) 155 W < P ≤ 405 W; 40 I) P ≤ 155 W: 30 mg mg may be used per burner For Sub-Cat. industrial: per burner 21 July 2024 It is understood that II) 155 W < P ≤ 405 W: these lamps are no 40 mg per burner For Cat. 8 & 9: longer placed on the III) P > 405 W: 40 mg 21 July 2021; market. Thus the per burner (III) P > 405 W; 40 mg may For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: exemption appears be used per burner 21 July 2023; to have become For Sub-Cat. 9 obsolete, however is industrial: 21 July 2024 specified for Cat. 8 and Cat. 9 in light of Article 5(2).

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions ix

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation

Mercury in other High Mercury in other High Pressure Sodium Pressure Sodium (vapour) n.4 (c) (vapour) lamps for general lighting lamps for general lighting purposes not exceeding (per burner) purposes not exceeding (per burner):

(I) P ≤ 155 W; 25 mg may be used per burner after For Cat. 5: 31 August 31 December 2011 2018; (II) 155 W < P ≤ 405 W; For Cat. 8 & 9: 21 July 30 mg may be used per 2021; I) P ≤ 155 W: 25 mg LightingEurope per burner burner after 31 December For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: 2011 21 July 2023; II) 155 W < P ≤ 405 W: For Sub-Cat. 9 30 mg per burner (III) P > 405 W; 40 mg may be used per burner after 31 industrial: 21 July 2024 III) P > 405 W: 40 mg December 2011 per burner (IV) P ≤ 405 W; 20 mg may be used per burner For Cat. 5: from 1 September 2018 until (V) P > 405 W; 25 mg may be 21 July 2021 used per burner

For Cat. 5, 8 & 9: 21 July 2021; Mercury in metal halide For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: n.4(e) Mercury in metal halide lamps (MH) LightingEurope lamps (MH) 21 July 2023; For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024

x

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation

For Cat. 8 & 9: 21 July (I) Mercury in other 2021; discharge lamps for special For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro:

purposes not specifically 21 July 2023; mentioned in this Annex For Sub-Cat. industrial: 21 July 2024

(II) Mercury in high pressure mercury vapour lamps used Mercury in other discharge lamps for VskE in projectors where an For Cat. 5: 21 July 2021 n.4(f) special purposes not specifically Lighting Europe output ≥2000 lumen ANSI is mentioned in this Annex VDMA required

(III) Mercury in high pressure sodium vapour lamps used For Cat. 5: 21 July 2021 for horticulture lighting

(IV) Mercury in lamps emitting light in the For Cat. 5: 21 July 2021 ultraviolet spectrum for curing and disinfection

For Cat. 5: 21 July 2021; For Cat. 8 and Cat. 9: Lead in glass of fluorescent Lead in glass of fluorescent tubes not 21 July 2021; n.5(b) LightingEurope tubes not exceeding 0,2 % exceeding 0,2 % by weight by weight For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: 21 July 2023; For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions xi

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation

I) Lead as an alloying element in steel for For Cat. 1-7 and 10 and machining purposes 11: 21 July 2019 containing up to 0,35 % lead by weight Dunkermotoren; The European Steel II) Lead in batch hot dip Lead as an alloying element in steel for Association galvanized steel For Cat. 1-7 and 10 and machining purposes and in galvanised (EUROFER) and n.6(a) components containing up 11: 21 July 2021 steel containing up to 0,35 % lead by European General to 0.2% lead by weight weight Galvanizers Association (EGGA) For Cat. 8 and 9: 21 July Sensata Technologies III) Lead as an alloying 2021; element in steel for For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: machining purposes and in 21 July 2023; galvanized steel containing up to 0,35 % lead by weight For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024

Lead as an alloying element

in aluminium

I) with a lead content up to 0.4 % by weight, used for Lead as an alloying element in AISBL - EAA For Cat. 1-7 and 10 and the production of parts not n.6(b) aluminium containing up to 0,4 % lead Sensata Technologies 11: 21 July 2021 machined with shape cutting by weight Dunkermotoren chipping technologies

II) for machining purposes For Cat. 1-11: 21 July with a lead content up to 0.4 2021 % by weight

xii

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation

For Cat. 8 and 9: 21 July III) Lead as an alloying 2021; element in aluminium For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro:

containing up to 0,4 % lead 21 July 2023; by weight For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024

Bourns Inc. For Cat. 1-7 and 10 and Dunkermotoren 11: 21 July 2019; Framo Morat Group For Cat. 8 and 9: 21 July Copper alloy containing up to 4 % lead Sensata Technologies Copper alloy containing up 2021; n.6(c) by weight Phoenix Contact to 4% lead by weight For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: GmbH &Co KG; 21 July 2023; Harting KGaA For Sub-Cat. 9 Lighting Europe industrial: 21 July 2024

For Cat. 8 and 9: 21 July Bourns Inc. I) Lead in high melting 2021; temperature type solders IXYS Semiconductor For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: (i.e. lead-based alloys GmbH 21 July 2023; Chenmko Enterprise containing 85 % by weight For Sub-Cat. 9 Lead in high melting temperature type Co., Ltd or more lead) industrial: 21 July 2024 n.7(a) solders (i.e. lead-based alloys containing Yeashin Technology 85 % by weight or more lead) Co., Ltd Lead in high melting temperature type solders (i.e. Freescale lead-based alloys containing 85 % by weight or more Semiconductor lead) Formosa Microsemi Co., Ltd. II) in all applications not For categories 1 to 7 See exemption addressed in items III and IV, and 10: 21 July 2021 report for alternative

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions xiii

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation but excluding applications in wording proposal for the scope of exemption 24 7(a)(II-IV).

III) for die attach For categories 1 to 7 IV) for electrical connections and 10: 21 July 2019 on or near the voice coil in power transducers

Bourns Inc. 7(c)-I: Electrical and Sensata Technologies electronic components See exemption YAGEO Corporation containing lead in a ceramic For categories 1-7 and report for alternative RALEC TECHNOLOGY other than dielectric ceramic 10: 21 July 2019 wording proposal for in discrete capacitor (KUNSHAN) CO. 7(c)-I BANDELN electronic components, e.g. Electrical and electronic components GmbH&Co.KG piezoelectronic devices containing lead in a glass or ceramic RALEC TECHNOLOGY other than dielectric ceramic in n.7(c)-I (KUNSHAN) CO. 7(c)-V: Electrical and capacitors, e.g. piezoelectronic devices, Japan Electronics & electronic components or in a glass or ceramic matrix Information containing lead in a glass or compound Technology in a glass or ceramic matrix See exemption Industries compound. For categories 1-7 and report for alternative Association This exemption does not 10: 21 July 2021 wording proposal for Murata Elektronik cover the use of lead in the 7(c)-I GmbH scope of exemption 34 EPCOS AG (cermet-based trimmer VISHAY BC potentiometers).

xiv

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation components BEYSCHLAG GmbH 7(d): Electrical and For Cat. 8 and 9: 21 July electronic components SCHOTT AG 2021; containing lead in a glass or See exemption ceramic other than dielectric For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: report for alternative ceramic in capacitors, e.g. 21 July 2023; wording proposal for piezoelectronic devices, or For Sub-Cat. 9 7(c)-I in a glass or ceramic matrix industrial: 21 July 2024 compound

For Cat. 8 and 9: 21 July Murata Elektronik 2021; GmbH Lead in dielectric ceramic in EPCOS AG capacitors for a rated For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: voltage of 125 V AC or 250 V 21 July 2023; VISHAY BC DC or higher components For Sub-Cat. 9 Lead in dielectric ceramic in capacitors industrial: 21 July 2024 n.7(c)-II for a rated voltage of 125 V AC or 250 V BEYSCHLAG GmbH DC or higher JEITA(Japan Lead in dielectric ceramic in Electronics & discrete capacitor Information components for a rated For Cat. 1-7 and 10: Technology voltage of 125 V AC or 21 July 2019 Industries higher, or for a rated voltage Association) of 250 V DC or higher

Lead in dielectric ceramic in 1 January 2013 and discrete capacitor after that date may be components for a rated used in spare parts for n.7(c)-III Recommended modified wording voltage of less than 125 V EEE placed on the AC, or for a rated voltage of market before 1 less than 250 V DC January 2013

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions xv

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation

For Cat. 1-7 and 10: 21 July 2019; Lead in PZT-based dielectric Lead in PZT-based dielectric ceramic For Cat. 8 and 9: 21 July ceramic materials of materials for capacitors which are part 2021; n.7(c)-IV ST Microelectronics capacitors being part of of integrated circuits or discrete integrated circuits or For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: semiconductors discrete semiconductors 21 July 2023; For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024

For Cat. 8 and 9: 21 July 2021; 8(b) Cadmium and its For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: compounds in electrical 21 July 2023; contacts For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024 Sensata Technologies Cadmium and its compounds in National Electrical 8(c): Cadmium and its n.8(b) electrical contacts Manufacturers compounds in electrical Association contacts of

(I) circuit breakers

(II) thermal motor For Cat. 1-7 and 10:

protectors excluding 21 July 2021 hermetically sealed thermal motor protectors

xvi

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation

For Cat. 1-7 and 10: (III) thermal sensing controls 21 July 2019

(IV) AC switches rated at 6 A and more in combination Applies to EEE in Cat. 1 with 250 V AC and more to 5, 7 and 10 (V) AC switches rated at 12 A For Cat. 1 to 5, 7 and and more in combination 10: 21 July 2019 with 125 V AC and more

(VI) AC switches for corded tools rated at 6 A and more in combination with 250 V AC and more (VII) AC switches for corded tools rated at 12 A and more in combination with 125 V AC and more Applies to Cat. 6 EEE:

(VIII) DC switches for 21 July 2021 cordless tools with a rated current of 20 A and more in combination with at a rated voltage of 18 V DC and more (IX) switches for tools conceived to be used with power supplies of 200 Hz and more

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions xvii

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation

Hexavalent chromium as an anticorrosion agent applied in carbon steel cooling systems of absorption refrigerators of applications:

(I) designed to operate with electrical heater only, with Hexavalent chromium as an anticorrosion agent of the carbon steel up to 0,75 % by weight in n.9 cooling system in absorption Dometic the cooling solution refrigerators up to 0,75 % by weight in the cooling solution (II) designed to operate with For Cat. 1: 21.7.2019 variable energy sources (three years)

(III) designed to operate with other than an electrical heater

For Cat. 8 and 9: 21 July I) Lead in solders to 2021; Lead in solders to complete a viable complete a viable electrical electrical connection between connection between For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: n.15 Intel Corporation semiconductor die and carrier within semiconductor die and 21 July 2023; integrated circuit flip chip packages carrier within integrated For Sub-Cat. 9 circuit flip chip packages industrial: 21 July 2024

xviii

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation

II) Lead in solders to complete a viable electrical connection between semiconductor die and the

carrier within integrated circuit flip chip packages where one of the below criteria applies:

a) A semiconductor For categories 1-7 and technology node of 90 nm 10: 21 July 2019 or larger

b) A single die of 300 mm2 or For categories 1-7 and larger in any semiconductor 10: 21 July 2021 technology node

c) Stacked die packages with dies of 300 mm² or larger, or For categories 1-7 and

silicon interposers of 10: 21 July 2021 300 mm2 or larger

The exemption d) Flip chip on lead frame cannot be (FCOL) packages with a recommended but is rated current of 3 A or added here in case higher and dies smaller than the Commission 300 mm² would decide that it should be granted

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions xix

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation

Lead as activator in the fluorescent powder (1 % lead by weight or less) of discharge lamps containing Lead as activator in the fluorescent phosphors such as BSP powder (1 % lead by weight or less) of NARVA Lichtquellen (BaSi2O5 :Pb), when used: n.18(b) discharge lamps when used as sun GmbH + Co. KG For Cat. 5: 21 July 2021 I. in tanning equipment; or tanning lamps containing phosphors Lighting Europe such as BSP (BaSi 2 O 5 :Pb) II. in Annex I category 8 medical phototherapy equipment - excluding applications falling under point 34 of Annex IV

I. Cd when used in colour printed glass to provide The EU Commission filtering functions, used as a should consider if it For Cat. 1-7 and 10: component in lighting would not be more 21 July 2021 applications installed in beneficial to add this displays and control panels entry to Ex. 13b. Lead and cadmium in printing inks for of EEE the application of enamels on glasses, n.21 Lighting Europe such as borosilicate and soda lime II. Alternative A: Cadmium The EU Commission glasses in printing inks for the could consider application of enamels on providing a shorter glasses, such as borosilicate For Cat. 1-7 and 10: validity period so as and soda lime glasses, when 21 July 2021 to promote the used to comply with supply chain to harmonised standards develop a strategy specifying the use of for research and

xx

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation particular hues for safety development of applications. alternatives for Cd- based inks. Alternative B: Cadmium in printing inks for the application of enamels on glasses, such as borosilicate and soda lime glasses, excluding Cd used in colour printed glass to provide filtering functions.

The recommended period should suffice III. Lead in printing inks for to establish the the application of enamels For Cat. 1-4, 6,7 and reliability of Pb-free on other than borosilicate 10: 21 July 2019 substitutes in other glasses. than borosilicate glasses.

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions xxi

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation

As it can be understood that the exemption duration may vary for various For Cat. 8 and Cat. 9: categories on the IV. Lead and cadmium in 21 July 2021; basis of Article 5(2), printing inks for the For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: expiration dates application of enamels on 21 July 2023; have been specified glasses, such as borosilicate here on the basis of and soda lime glasses For Sub-Cat. 9 the validity periods industrial: 21 July 2024; specified in Article 5(2) for categories, which are newly in scope.

For Cat. 1-7 and 10: 21 January 2019; Lead in solders for the Lead in solders for the soldering to For Cat. 8 and Cat. 9: soldering to machined machined through hole discoidal and 21 July 2021; n.24 Knowles through hole discoidal and planar array ceramic multilayer planar array ceramic For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: capacitors multilayer capacitors 21 July 2023; For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024;

xxii

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation

For Cat. 1-10: EUROPEAN 21 July 2021 Lead bound in crystal glass as defined in Lead bound in crystal glass DOMESTIC GLASS For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: n.29 Annex I (Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4) of as defined in Directive and 21 July 2023 Council Directive 69/493/EEC ( 1 ) 69/493/EEC LightingEurope For Sub-Cat. industrial: 21 July 2024

For Cat. 1-10: Lead oxide in seal frit used 21 July 2021 Lead oxide in seal frit used for making Coherent Inc. for making window For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: n.32 window assemblies for Argon and JDSU assemblies for Argon and 21 July 2023 Krypton laser tubes Krypton laser tubes For Sub-Cat. industrial: 21 July 2024

For Cat. 1-7 and 10: 21 July 2019; For Cat. 8 and Cat. 9: Lead in cermet-based trimmer Lead in cermet-based 21 July 2021; n.34 General Electric potentiometer elements trimmer potentiometers For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: 21 July 2023; For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024;

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions xxiii

Exemption Wording: Applicant Recommendation: Proposed Duration Comments No. Main Entry Sub-Entry Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation

For categories 1-7 and 10: 21 July 2019; Lead in the plating layer of For Cat. 8 and 9: 21 July Lead in the plating layer of high voltage IXYS Semiconductor high voltage diodes on the 2021; n.37 diodes on the basis of a zinc borate glass GmbH basis of a zinc borate glass For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: body General Electric body 21 July 2023; For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024 The report includes the following sections: Section 1.0: Project Set-up Section 2.0: Scope Section 3.0: Links from the Directive to the REACH Regulation Sections 4.0 through 34.0: Evaluation of the requested exemptions handled in the course of this project.

xxiv

Contents

E.1.0 Background and Objectives ...... i E.2.0 Key Findings – Overview of the Evaluation Results ...... ii 1.0 Project Set-up...... 1 2.0 Scope ...... 1 3.0 Links from the Directive to the REACH Regulation ...... 3 4.0 Exemptions 1-4 Regarding the Use of Mercury in Lamps – General Aspects ..... 8 4.1 Background ...... 9 4.2 Annex I Category Covered by this Exemption...... 10 4.3 Justification for the Exemption Renewals ...... 11 4.3.1 Amount of Mercury Used under the Exemptions ...... 11 4.3.2 Alternatives to Hg-based Discharge Lamps ...... 17 4.3.3 Environmental Arguments ...... 19 4.3.4 Socio-economic Impact of Substitution ...... 22 4.3.5 Road Map to Substitution ...... 23 4.3.6 The Minamata Convention ...... 23 4.4 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 25 4.5 Critical Review ...... 30 4.5.1 REACH Compliance – Relation to the REACH Regulation ...... 31 4.5.2 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution ...... 31 4.5.3 Environmental Arguments ...... 33 4.5.4 Safety Aspects ...... 38 4.5.5 Road Map to Substitution ...... 38 4.5.6 The Minamata Convention ...... 39 4.5.7 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 40 4.5.8 The Scope of the Exemption ...... 41 4.6 References Exemptions 1-4 – General Aspects ...... 42 5.0 Exemption 1(a-e): "Mercury in single capped (compact) fluorescent lamps not exceeding (per burner)” ...... 44 5.1 Background ...... 45 5.1.1 Amount of Lead Used under the Exemption ...... 45

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions xxv

5.2 Description of Requested Exemption ...... 47 5.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption ...... 50 5.3.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances ...... 50 5.3.2 Possible Alternatives for Eliminating RoHS Substances ...... 50 5.3.3 The Minamata Convention ...... 54 5.3.4 Roadmap to Substitution...... 55 5.4 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 55 5.5 Critical Review ...... 61 5.5.1 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution ...... 61 5.5.2 Environmental Arguments ...... 66 5.5.3 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 69 5.5.4 The Scope of the Exemption ...... 71 5.5.5 Conclusions ...... 72 5.6 Recommendation ...... 77 5.7 References Exemption 1(a-e) ...... 79 6.0 General Recommendation Regarding Exemptions for Special Purpose Lamps . 82 7.0 Exemption 1(f): Mercury in single capped (compact) fluorescent lamps not exceeding (per burner) For Special purposes: 5 mg ...... 85 7.1 Background ...... 86 7.2 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption ...... 86 7.2.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances ...... 89 7.2.2 Possible Alternatives for Eliminating RoHS Substances ...... 89 7.2.3 Environmental Arguments ...... 92 7.2.4 Road Map to Substitution ...... 93 7.3 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 93 7.4 Critical Review ...... 93 7.4.1 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution ...... 93 7.4.2 Environmental Arguments ...... 95 7.4.3 The Scope of the Exemption ...... 95 7.4.4 Exemption Wording Formulation ...... 98 7.4.5 Conclusions ...... 98 7.5 Recommendation ...... 100

xxvi

7.6 References Exemption (1f)...... 101 8.0 Exemption 2(a)(1-5): " Mercury in double-capped linear fluorescent lamps for general lighting purposes not exceeding (per lamp):” [various entries]” .. 102 8.1 Background ...... 103 8.2 Description of Requested Exemption ...... 104 8.2.1 Amount of Mercury Used under the Exemption ...... 109 8.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption ...... 109 8.3.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances ...... 110 8.3.2 Possible Alternatives for Eliminating RoHS Substances ...... 110 8.3.3 Environmental Arguments ...... 114 8.3.4 The Minamata Convention ...... 116 8.3.5 Road Map to Substitution ...... 116 8.4 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 116 8.5 Critical Review ...... 119 8.5.1 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution ...... 119 8.5.2 Environmental Arguments ...... 123 8.5.3 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 124 8.5.4 Conclusions ...... 125 8.6 Recommendation ...... 127 8.7 References Exemption 2(a)(1-5) ...... 128 9.0 Exemption 2(b)(3): "Mercury in other fluorescent lamps not exceeding (per lamp): (3) Non-linear tri-band phosphor lamps with tube diameter > 17 mm (e.g. T9)” ...... 131 9.1 Background ...... 132 9.2 Description of Requested Exemption ...... 132 9.2.1 Amount of Mercury Used under the Exemption ...... 134 9.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption ...... 135 9.3.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances ...... 135 9.3.2 Possible Alternatives for Eliminating RoHS Substances ...... 136 9.3.3 Environmental Arguments ...... 137 9.3.4 Road Map to Substitution ...... 138 9.4 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 138 9.5 Critical Review ...... 138

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions xxvii

9.5.1 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution ...... 138 9.5.2 Environmental Arguments ...... 140 9.5.3 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 140 9.5.4 Conclusions ...... 140 9.6 Recommendation ...... 142 9.7 References Exemption 2(b)(3) ...... 143 10.0 Exemption 2(b)4: Lamps for other general lighting and special purposes (e.g. induction lamps): 15 mg may be used per lamp after 31 December 2011 ...... 144 10.1 Background ...... 145 10.2 Description of Requested Exemption ...... 145 10.1 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption ...... 146 10.1.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances ...... 148 10.1.2 Possible Alternatives for Eliminating RoHS Substances ...... 149 10.1.3 Environmental Arguments ...... 150 10.1.4 Socio-economic Impact of Substitution ...... 150 10.1.5 Road Map to Substitution ...... 151 10.2 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 151 10.3 Critical Review ...... 151 10.3.1 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution ...... 151 10.3.2 Environmental Arguments ...... 155 10.3.3 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 155 10.3.4 The Scope of the Exemption ...... 155 10.3.5 Exemption Wording Formulation ...... 156 10.3.6 Conclusions ...... 157 10.4 Recommendation ...... 158 10.5 References Exemption 2(b)4 ...... 159 11.0 Exemption 3(a-c): "Mercury in other fluorescent lamps not exceeding (per lamp): (3) Non-linear tri-band phosphor lamps with tube diameter > 15 mm (e.g. T9)” ...... 160 11.1 Background ...... 161 11.2 Description of Requested Exemption ...... 162 11.2.1 Amount of Mercury Used under the Exemption ...... 164 11.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption ...... 165

xxviii

11.3.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances ...... 165 11.3.2 Possible Alternatives for Eliminating RoHS Substances ...... 166 11.3.3 Environmental Arguments ...... 167 11.3.4 Roadmap to Substitution...... 167 11.4 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 168 11.5 Critical Review ...... 168 11.5.1 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution ...... 168 11.5.2 Environmental Arguments ...... 170 11.5.3 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 171 11.5.4 Scope ...... 171 11.5.5 Conclusions ...... 172 11.6 Recommendation ...... 172 11.7 References Exemption 3(a-c): ...... 173 12.0 Exemption 4(a)"Mercury in other low pressure discharge lamps (per lamp): (a) 15 mg per lamp" ...... 174 12.1 Background ...... 175 12.2 Description of Requested Exemption ...... 176 12.2.1 Amount of Mercury Used under the Exemption ...... 179 12.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption ...... 180 12.3.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances ...... 180 12.3.2 Possible Alternatives for Eliminating RoHS Substances ...... 181 12.3.3 Road Map to Substitution ...... 182 12.4 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 182 12.5 Critical Review ...... 182 12.5.1 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution ...... 182 12.5.2 Environmental Arguments ...... 183 12.5.3 The Scope of the Exemption ...... 184 12.5.4 Exemption Wording Formulation ...... 185 12.5.5 Conclusions ...... 185 12.6 Recommendation ...... 186 12.7 References Exemption 4(a) ...... 187

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions xxix

13.0 Exemption 4(b)(I-III): " Mercury in High Pressure Sodium (vapour) lamps for general lighting purposes not exceeding (per burner) in lamps with improved colour rendering index Ra > 60” ...... 188 13.1 Background ...... 189 13.2 Description of Requested Exemption ...... 189 13.2.1 Amount of Mercury Used under the Exemption ...... 194 13.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption ...... 194 13.3.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances ...... 194 13.3.2 Possible Alternatives for Eliminating RoHS Substances ...... 196 13.3.3 Environmental Arguments ...... 197 13.3.4 Road Map to Substitution ...... 198 13.4 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 198 13.5 Critical Review ...... 199 13.5.1 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution ...... 199 13.5.2 Environmental Arguments ...... 201 13.5.3 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 201 13.5.4 Conclusions ...... 201 13.6 Recommendation ...... 202 13.7 References Exemption 4(b)(I-III): ...... 203 14.0 Exemption 4(c)(I-III): "Mercury in other High Pressure Sodium (Vapour) Lamps for General Lighting Purposes not Exceeding (Per Burner):”...... 204 14.1 Background ...... 205 14.2 Description of Requested Exemption ...... 205 14.2.1 Amount of Mercury Used under the Exemption ...... 207 14.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption ...... 210 14.3.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances ...... 210 14.3.2 Possible Alternatives for Eliminating RoHS Substances ...... 212 14.3.3 Environmental Arguments ...... 216 14.3.4 Road Map to Substitution ...... 217 14.4 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 217 14.5 Critical Review ...... 219 14.5.1 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution ...... 219 14.5.2 Environmental Arguments ...... 220

xxx

14.5.3 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 221 14.5.4 Conclusions ...... 221 14.6 Recommendation ...... 222 14.7 References Exemption 4(c)(I-III): ...... 223 15.0 Exemption 4(e): "Mercury in Metal Halide Lamps (MH)” ...... 224 15.1 Background ...... 225 15.2 Description of Requested Exemption ...... 225 15.2.1 Amount of Mercury Used under the Exemption ...... 227 15.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption ...... 229 15.3.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances ...... 229 15.3.2 Possible Alternatives for Eliminating RoHS Substances ...... 233 15.3.3 Environmental Arguments ...... 235 15.3.4 Road Map to Substitution ...... 236 15.4 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 237 15.5 Critical Review ...... 238 15.5.1 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution ...... 238 15.5.2 Environmental Arguments ...... 243 15.5.3 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 244 15.5.4 Conclusions ...... 244 15.6 Recommendation ...... 245 15.7 References Exemption 4(e): ...... 246 16.0 Exemption 4(f): "Mercury in other discharge lamps for special purposes not specifically mentioned in this Annex” ...... 247 16.1 Background ...... 248 16.2 Description of Requested Exemption ...... 249 16.2.1 The Scope of the Exemption ...... 255 16.2.2 Specified Lamp Technologies/Applications Falling under Ex. 4(f) ...... 256 16.2.3 Amount of Mercury Used under the Exemption ...... 259 16.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption ...... 261 16.3.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances ...... 261 16.3.2 Possible Alternatives for Eliminating RoHS Substances ...... 262 16.3.3 Environmental Arguments ...... 267

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions xxxi

16.3.4 Socio-economic Impact of Substitution ...... 267 16.3.5 Roadmap to Substitution...... 268 16.4 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 268 16.5 Critical Review ...... 269 16.5.1 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution ...... 269 16.5.2 Environmental Arguments ...... 271 16.5.3 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 271 16.5.4 Conclusions ...... 272 16.6 Recommendation ...... 273 16.7 References Exemption 4(f): ...... 274 17.0 Exemption 5(b): "Lead in glass of fluorescent tubes not exceeding 0,2 % by weight” ...... 276 17.1 Background ...... 276 17.1.1 Amount of Lead Used under the Exemption ...... 277 17.2 Description of Requested Exemption ...... 277 17.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption ...... 278 17.3.1 Possible Alternatives for Substitution ...... 279 17.3.2 Environmental Arguments ...... 279 17.3.3 Socio-economic Impact of Substitution ...... 280 17.4 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 280 17.5 Critical Review ...... 280 17.5.1 REACH Compliance – Relation to the REACH Regulation ...... 280 17.5.2 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution, environmental arguments ...... 281 17.5.3 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 281 17.5.4 The Scope of the Exemption ...... 282 17.5.5 Conclusions ...... 282 17.6 Recommendation ...... 283 17.7 References Exemption 5b ...... 284 18.0 Exemption 6a: "Lead as an alloying element in steel for machining purposes and in galvanised steel containing up to 0,35 % lead by weight" ...... 285 18.1 Background ...... 286 18.1.1 Amount of Lead Used under the Exemption ...... 288

xxxii

18.2 Description of Requested Exemption ...... 289 18.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption ...... 290 18.3.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances ...... 292 18.3.2 Possibilities for Reducing RoHS Substances ...... 295 18.3.3 Environmental Arguments ...... 296 18.3.4 Socio-economic Impact of Substitution ...... 297 18.3.5 Road Map to Substitution ...... 298 18.4 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 298 18.5 Critical Review ...... 300 18.5.1 REACH Compliance – Relation to the REACH Regulation ...... 300 18.5.2 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution ...... 301 18.5.3 Possibilities for Reducing RoHS Substances ...... 305 18.5.4 Environmental Arguments ...... 307 18.5.5 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 307 18.5.6 The Scope of the Exemption ...... 308 18.5.7 Exemption Wording Formulation ...... 310 18.5.8 Conclusions ...... 311 18.6 Recommendation ...... 312 18.7 References Exemption 6a...... 314 19.0 Exemption 6b: "Lead as an alloying element in aluminium containing up to 0,4 % lead by weight" ...... 316 19.1 Background ...... 317 19.1.1 History of the Exemption ...... 318 19.1.2 Amount of Lead Used under the Exemption ...... 319 19.2 Description of Requested Exemption ...... 319 19.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption ...... 321 19.3.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances ...... 322 19.3.2 Environmental Arguments ...... 323 19.3.3 Socio-Economic Impact of Substitution ...... 323 19.3.4 Roadmap to Substitution...... 323 19.4 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 323 19.5 Critical Review ...... 324

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions xxxiii

19.5.1 REACH Compliance - Relation to the REACH Regulation ...... 324 19.5.2 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution ...... 325 19.5.3 Environmental Arguments ...... 330 19.5.4 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 330 19.5.5 The Scope of the Exemption ...... 331 19.5.6 Exemption Wording Formulation ...... 332 19.5.7 Conclusions ...... 333 19.6 Recommendation ...... 335 19.7 References Exemption 6b ...... 335 20.0 Exemption 6c: "Copper alloy containing up to 4% lead by weight" ...... 338 20.1 Background ...... 339 20.1.1 Amount of Lead Used under the Exemption ...... 342 20.2 Description of Requested Exemption ...... 343 20.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption ...... 345 20.3.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances ...... 348 20.3.2 Possible Alternatives for Eliminating RoHS Substances ...... 349 20.3.3 Environmental Arguments ...... 350 20.3.4 Socio-economic Impact of Substitution ...... 351 20.3.5 Road Map to Substitution ...... 351 20.4 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 351 20.5 Critical Review ...... 355 20.5.1 REACH Compliance - Relation to the REACH Regulation ...... 355 20.5.2 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution ...... 356 20.5.3 Possible Alternatives for Eliminating or Reducing RoHS Substances ...... 360 20.5.4 Environmental Arguments ...... 361 20.5.5 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 361 20.5.6 The Scope of the Exemption ...... 362 20.5.7 Exemption Wording Formulation ...... 363 20.5.8 Conclusions ...... 363 20.6 Recommendation ...... 364 20.7 References Exemption 6c ...... 366 21.0 Exemption 7a ...... 369

xxxiv

21.1 Description of the Requested Exemption ...... 370 21.1.1 Overview of the Submitted Exemption Requests ...... 370 21.1.2 Background and History of the Exemption...... 371 21.1.3 Technical Description of the Requested Exemption ...... 373 21.1.4 Amount of Lead Used Under Exemption 7(a) ...... 389 21.2 Applicants’ Justification for the Continuation or Repealment of the Exemption ...... 391 21.2.1 Substitution of LHMPS by Lead-free Solders and Conductive Adhesives ..... 391 21.2.2 Elimination of LHMPS ...... 395 21.2.3 Substitution and Elimination of Lead in High Power Transducers (Bosch) .. 398 21.2.4 Other Stakeholder Contributions ...... 399 21.2.5 Environmental Impacts ...... 401 21.3 Roadmap for Substitution or Elimination of Lead ...... 401 21.4 Critical Review ...... 405 21.4.1 REACH Compliance - Relation to the REACH Regulation ...... 405 21.4.2 Substitution and Elimination of Lead in High Power Transducers (Bosch) .. 406 21.4.3 Substitution and Elimination of Lead Die Attach ...... 407 21.4.4 Substitution and Elimination of Lead in Other Applications of LHMPS ...... 411 21.4.5 Specification of Exemption 7(a) ...... 412 21.4.6 Conclusions ...... 417 21.5 Recommendation ...... 418 21.5.1 Wording of Exemption 7(a) ...... 418 21.5.2 Applicants’ Statements Concerning the Split of Exemption 7(a)...... 419 21.6 References Exemption 7(a) ...... 420 22.0 Exemption 7c-I: “Electrical and electronic components containing lead in a glass or ceramic other than dielectric ceramic in capacitors, e.g. piezoelectronic devices, or in a glass or ceramic matrix compound” ...... 424 22.1 Background and History of the Exemption ...... 426 22.2 Description of the Requested Exemption ...... 427 22.2.1 Overview of the Submitted Exemption Requests ...... 427 22.2.2 Technical Background of the Requests for Renewal of Exemption 7c-I (Murata/JEITA et al.) ...... 432

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions xxxv

22.2.3 Technical Background of the Bandelin Application-specific Exemption Request ...... 436 22.2.4 Technical Description of the Bourns Exemption Request ...... 437 22.2.5 Technical Description of the IXYS Application-specific Exemption Request . 437 22.2.6 Technical Background of the Pyreos Application-specific Exemption Request ...... 439 22.2.7 Technical Background of the Schott Exemption Request ...... 441 22.2.8 Technical Background of the Sensata Exemption Request ...... 442 22.2.9 Amount of Lead Used Under the Exemption ...... 443 22.3 Applicants’ Justifications for the Exemption ...... 444 22.3.1 General Status of Lead Substitution in Ceramics of Electrical and Electronic Components ...... 444 22.3.2 Substitution of Lead in PZT Ceramics ...... 447 22.3.3 Substitution of Lead in PTC Semiconductor Ceramics ...... 456 22.3.4 Substitution of Lead in Glass and Glass/Ceramic Matrix Compounds ...... 460 22.3.5 Impacts on Environment, Health and Resources ...... 478 22.4 Roadmap for Substitution or Elimination of Lead ...... 479 22.4.1 Substitution and Elimination of Lead in Piezoelectric and PTC Ceramics .... 479 22.4.2 Substitution and Elimination of Lead in Glass and Glass or Ceramic Matrix Compounds ...... 480 22.5 Critical Review ...... 481 22.5.1 REACH Compliance - Relation to the REACH Regulation ...... 481 22.5.2 Substitution and Elimination of Lead in Ceramics ...... 483 22.5.3 Substitution and Elimination of Lead in Glass and Glass or Ceramic Matrix Compounds ...... 488 22.5.4 Specification of the 7c-series Exemptions ...... 490 22.5.5 Conclusions ...... 495 22.6 Recommendation ...... 496 22.7 References Exemption 7c-I...... 498 23.0 Exemption 7c-II “Lead in Dielectric Ceramic in Capacitors for a Rated Voltage of 125 V AC or 250 V DC or Higher” ...... 502 23.1 Description of the Requested Exemption ...... 502 23.1.1 Background and History of the Exemption...... 503 23.1.2 Technical Description of the Exemption ...... 503

xxxvi

23.1.3 Amount of Lead Used under the Exemption ...... 504 23.2 Applicants’ Justification for the Renewal of the Exemption ...... 506 23.2.1 Clarification of the Exemption Scope ...... 506 23.2.2 Substitution of Lead ...... 506 23.2.3 Elimination of Lead ...... 508 23.3 Roadmap for Substitution or Elimination of RoHS-Restricted Substance ... 508 23.4 Critical Review ...... 509 23.4.1 REACH Compliance - Relation to the REACH Regulation ...... 509 23.4.2 Substitution and Elimination of Lead ...... 511 23.4.3 Rewording of the Exemption ...... 514 23.4.4 Conclusions ...... 514 23.5 Recommendation ...... 516 23.6 References Exemption 7c-II...... 517 24.0 Exemption 7c-IV “Lead in PZT based dielectric ceramic materials for capacitors which are part of integrated circuits or discrete semiconductors” 518 24.1 Description of the Requested Exemption ...... 519 24.1.1 Background and History of the Exemption...... 519 24.1.2 Technical Description of the Requested Exemption ...... 520 24.1.3 Amounts of Lead Used under Exemption 7c-IV ...... 524 24.2 Applicants’ Justification for the Continuation of the Exemption ...... 525 24.2.1 Alternatives to PZT-based Integrated Passive Devices in Thin Film High Density Capacitors ...... 525 24.3 Roadmap for Substitution or Elimination of RoHS-Restricted Substance ... 530 24.4 Critical Review ...... 531 24.4.1 REACH Compliance - Relation to the REACH Regulation ...... 531 24.4.2 Substitution and Elimination of Lead - Specification of the Exemption ...... 533 24.4.3 Conclusions ...... 535 24.5 Recommendation ...... 536 24.6 References Exemption 7c-IV ...... 537 25.0 Exemption 8b: “Cadmium and its Compounds in Electrical Contacts” ...... 538 25.1 Description of the Requested Exemption ...... 538 25.1.1 Background and History of the Exemption...... 539

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions xxxvii

25.1.2 Amount of Lead Used Under the Exemption ...... 540 25.1.3 Technical Description of the Requested Exemption ...... 542 25.2 Applicants’ Justification for the Continuation of the Exemption ...... 543 25.2.1 NEMA et al...... 543 25.2.2 Sensata ...... 545 25.2.3 Marquardt ...... 548 25.2.4 Ubukata ...... 550 25.3 Roadmap for Substitution or Elimination of RoHS-Restricted Substance ... 551 25.3.1 NEMA et al...... 551 25.3.2 Sensata ...... 552 25.3.3 Ubukata and Marquardt ...... 553 25.4 Critical Review ...... 553 25.4.1 REACH ...... 553 25.4.2 Substitution and Elimination of Cadmium ...... 554 25.4.3 Conclusions ...... 555 25.5 Recommendation ...... 559 25.5.1 Rewording of the Exemption ...... 559 25.5.2 Stakeholders’ Comments on the Rewording Proposal ...... 560 25.6 References Exemption 8b ...... 561 26.0 Exemption 9: "Hexavalent chromium as an anticorrosion agent of the carbon steel cooling system in absorption refrigerators up to 0,75 % by weight in the cooling solution" ...... 564 26.1 Background ...... 565 26.1.1 History of the Exemption ...... 567 26.1.2 Amount of Hexavalent Chromium Used under the Exemption ...... 568 26.2 Description of Requested Exemption ...... 568 26.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption ...... 569 26.3.1 Environmental Arguments ...... 570 26.3.2 Socio-economic Impact of Substitution ...... 571 26.3.3 Road Map to Substitution ...... 571 26.4 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 572 26.5 Critical Review ...... 573

xxxviii

26.5.1 REACH Compliance - Relation to the REACH Regulation ...... 573 26.5.2 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution ...... 575 26.5.3 Environmental Arguments ...... 576 26.5.4 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 576 26.5.5 The Scope of the Exemption ...... 576 26.5.6 Exemption Wording Formulation ...... 578 26.5.7 Conclusions ...... 579 26.6 Recommendation ...... 580 26.7 References Exemption 9 ...... 581 27.0 Exemption 15“Lead in solders to complete a viable electrical connection between semiconductor die and carrier within integrated circuit flip chip packages” ...... 583 27.1 Description of the Requested Exemption ...... 584 27.1.1 Background and History of the Exemption...... 584 27.1.2 Technical Description of the Requested Exemption ...... 585 27.1.3 Amount of Lead Used Under Exemption 15 ...... 588 27.2 Stakeholders’ Justification for the Continuation of the Exemption ...... 590 27.2.1 Lead in Solders of FCP with Large Technology Nodes ...... 591 27.2.2 Use of Lead Solders in FCP with Large Dies and/or Large Interposers ...... 594 27.2.3 Lead in Solders of High Current FCOL ...... 598 27.2.4 Elimination of Lead in FCP ...... 601 27.2.5 Other Stakeholder’s Contribution ...... 602 27.3 Roadmap for Substitution or Elimination of RoHS-Restricted Substance ... 603 27.4 Critical Review ...... 604 27.4.1 REACH Compliance - Relation to the REACH Regulation ...... 604 27.4.2 Rewording of the Exemption ...... 605 27.4.3 Substitution and Elimination of Lead ...... 606 27.4.4 Expiry Date for Older FCP ...... 607 27.4.5 Expiry Date for FCP with Large Dies and Large Silicon Interposers ...... 612 27.4.6 Lead Solders in High Current FCOL ...... 612 27.4.7 Conclusions ...... 613 27.5 Recommendation ...... 613

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions xxxix

27.6 References Exemption 15 ...... 614 28.0 Exemption 18b: "Lead as activator in the fluorescent powder (1 % lead by weight or less) of discharge lamps when used as sun tanning lamps containing phosphors such as BSP (BaSi2O5:Pb)” ...... 616 28.1 Background ...... 617 28.1.1 Amount of Lead Used under the Exemption ...... 618 28.2 Description of Requested Exemption ...... 618 28.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption ...... 621 28.3.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances ...... 622 28.3.2 Possible Alternatives for Eliminating RoHS Substances ...... 624 28.3.3 Environmental Arguments ...... 625 28.3.4 Socio-economic Impact of Substitution ...... 625 28.3.5 Road Map to Substitution ...... 626 28.4 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 627 28.5 Critical Review ...... 627 28.5.1 REACH Compliance - Relation to the REACH Regulation ...... 627 28.5.2 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution ...... 628 28.5.3 Environmental Arguments ...... 629 28.5.4 Socio-Economic Arguments ...... 629 28.5.5 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 630 28.5.6 The Scope of the Exemption ...... 631 28.5.7 Exemption Wording Formulation ...... 633 28.5.8 Conclusions ...... 633 28.6 Recommendation ...... 634 28.7 References Exemption 18b ...... 635 29.0 Exemption 21: "Lead and cadmium in printing inks for the application of enamels on glasses, such as borosilicate and soda lime glasses” ...... 636 29.1 Background ...... 637 29.1.1 Amount of Lead Used under the Exemption ...... 638 29.2 Description of Requested Exemption ...... 638 29.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption ...... 641 29.3.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances ...... 641 29.3.2 Possible Alternatives for Eliminating RoHS Substances ...... 641

xl

29.3.3 Environmental Arguments ...... 641 29.3.4 Socio-economic Impact of Substitution ...... 642 29.4 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 642 29.5 Critical Review ...... 645 29.5.1 REACH Compliance - Relation to the REACH Regulation ...... 645 29.5.2 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution ...... 647 29.5.3 Environmental Arguments ...... 650 29.5.4 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 650 29.5.5 The Scope of the Exemption ...... 650 29.5.6 Conclusions ...... 655 29.6 Recommendation ...... 657 29.7 References Exemption 21 ...... 658 30.0 Exemption 24 “Pb in solders for the soldering to machined through hole discoidal and planar array ceramic multilayer capacitors” ...... 660 30.1 Description of the Requested Exemption ...... 660 30.1.1 Background and History of the Exemption...... 661 30.1.2 Technical Description of the Exemption ...... 661 30.1.3 Amounts of Lead Used under the Exemption ...... 662 30.2 Applicants’ Justification for the Continuation of the Exemption ...... 664 30.2.1 Elimination of Lead ...... 664 30.2.2 Substitution of Lead by Lead-free Solders ...... 666 30.3 Roadmap for Substitution or Elimination of RoHS-Restricted Substance ... 670 30.4 Critical Review ...... 670 30.4.1 REACH Compliance - Relation to the REACH Regulation ...... 670 30.4.2 Elimination of Lead ...... 672 30.4.3 Substitution of Lead ...... 672 30.4.4 Conclusions ...... 674 30.5 Recommendation ...... 676 30.6 References Exemption Request 24 ...... 677 31.0 Exemption 29: "Lead bound in crystal glass as defined in Annex I (Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4) of Council Directive 69/493/EEC (1)" ...... 679 31.1 Background ...... 680

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions xli

31.2 Amount of Lead Used under the Exemption ...... 682 31.3 Description of Requested Exemption ...... 682 31.4 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption ...... 685 31.4.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances ...... 685 31.4.2 Environmental Arguments ...... 687 31.4.3 Socio-economic Impact of Substitution ...... 690 31.4.4 Roadmap to Substitution...... 691 31.5 Visit of LCG Manufacturing Facility ...... 694 31.6 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 696 31.7 Critical Review ...... 700 31.7.1 REACH Compliance – Relation to the REACH Regulation ...... 700 31.7.2 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution ...... 700 31.7.3 Environmental Arguments ...... 702 31.7.4 Socio-Economic Impacts ...... 703 31.7.5 Stakeholder Contributions ...... 703 31.7.6 The Scope of the Exemption ...... 703 31.7.7 Conclusions ...... 704 31.8 Recommendation ...... 705 31.9 References Exemption 29 ...... 707 32.0 Exemption 32 “Lead oxide in seal frit used for making window assemblies for Argon and Krypton laser tubes” ...... 710 32.1 Description of the Requested Exemption ...... 710 32.1.1 Background and History of the Exemption...... 710 32.1.2 Technical Description of the Exemption ...... 711 32.1.3 Amount of Lead Used Under the Exemption ...... 713 32.2 Applicants’ Justification for the Continuation of the Exemption ...... 713 32.2.1 Substitution of Lead ...... 713 32.2.2 Elimination of Lead ...... 717 32.2.3 Environmental Arguments ...... 718 32.3 Roadmap for Substitution or Elimination of RoHS-Restricted Substance ... 719 32.4 Critical Review ...... 719 32.4.1 REACH Compliance - Relation to the REACH Regulation ...... 719

xlii

32.4.2 Environmental Arguments ...... 720 32.4.3 Substitution and Elimination of Lead ...... 720 32.4.4 Conclusions ...... 722 32.5 Recommendation ...... 722 32.6 References Exemption 32 ...... 723 33.0 Exemption 34 “Pb in cermet-based trimmer potentiometer elements” ...... 724 33.1 Description of the Requested Exemption ...... 724 33.1.1 Background and History of the Exemption...... 725 33.1.2 Technical Description of the Exemption ...... 726 33.1.3 Amount of Lead Used Under the Exemption ...... 726 33.2 Applicants’ Justification for the Continuation of the Exemption ...... 727 33.2.1 Substitution of Lead ...... 727 33.2.2 Elimination of Lead ...... 729 33.2.3 Roadmap towards Substitution or Elimination of Lead ...... 730 33.3 Critical Review ...... 731 33.3.1 REACH Compliance - Relation to the REACH Regulation ...... 731 33.3.2 Substitution and Elimination of Lead ...... 732 33.3.3 Conclusions ...... 733 33.3.4 Integration of Exemption 34 into Exemption 7(c)-I ...... 734 33.4 Recommendation ...... 734 33.5 References Exemption Request 34 ...... 734 34.0 Exemption 37 “Pb in the plating of high voltage diodes on the basis of a zinc borate glass body” ...... 736 34.1 Description of the Requested Exemption ...... 736 34.1.1 Background and History of the Exemption...... 737 34.1.2 Technical Description of the Exemption ...... 737 34.1.3 Amount of Lead Used Under the Exemption ...... 738 34.2 Applicants’ Justification for the Continuation of the Exemption ...... 739 34.2.1 Substitution of Lead in the Glass Bead ...... 740 34.2.2 Elimination of Lead ...... 745 34.2.3 Avoidance of the Lead Contamination of the Plating Layer...... 746 34.3 Roadmap for Substitution or Elimination of RoHS-Restricted Substance ... 747

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions xliii

34.4 Critical Review ...... 747 34.4.1 REACH Compliance - Relation to the REACH Regulation ...... 747 34.4.2 Substitution and Elimination of Lead ...... 749 34.4.3 Conclusions ...... 750 34.5 Recommendation ...... 751 34.6 References Exemption 37 ...... 752 A.1.0 Appendix 1: Relevant REACH Regulation Entries ...... 754 A.2.0 Appendix 2: Data as to the Average Number and Type of Light Sources per Household ...... 771 A.3.0 Appendix 3: Applications of Ex. 4(f) UV Curing Lamps...... 774 A.4.0 Appendix 4: Exemption 6b ...... 775 A.5.0 Appendix 5: Exemption 7(a) ...... 783 A.5.1 DA5 Research for Alternatives to LHMPS Die Attach ...... 783 A.5.2 Efforts of International Rectifier (IR) for LHMPS Substitution ...... 794 A.5.3 Timing devices, which are quartz crystals and components including these, like oscillators of all kinds and real time clock modules (RTCs) ...... 802 A.5.4 Oven Lamps ...... 804 A.6.0 Appendix 6: Ce-doped Phosphor Coating Variations ...... 806 A.7.0 Appendix 7: Cd-based Ink Printing Colours that do not Exist in Cadmium- Free Versions (Ex. 21) ...... 807 A.8.0 Appendix 8: Leaching Test Results Related to Ex. 29 ...... 809

xliv

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1-1: Overview of the exemption requests, associated recommendations and expiry dates ...... iii Table 4-1: Overview of Hg amounts brought on the market through discharge lamps .... 14 Table 4-2: General composition of LED and CFLi lamps ...... 20 Table 4-3: Example of electronics used in LED and CFLi lamps...... 21 Table 4-4: Survey of Danish households on bulb disposal ...... 26 Table 4-5: Energy consumption totals by bulbs type in 1998 and 2012 ...... 28 Table 5-1: Breakdown of total CFL market share according to wattages (RoHS exemption item) and respective Hg amounts ...... 46 Table 5-2: Evolvement of Hg amounts to be placed on the EU market through exemption 1(a-e) between 2013 and 2020 ...... 46 Table 5-3: Examples of CFL lamps ...... 47 Table 5-4: Characteristics of CFL lamps falling under ex. 1(a-e) ...... 48 Table 5-5: Technology breakdown of lamp sales, 2013 ...... 55 Table 5-6: The number of the various bulb types in Danish households ...... 57 Table 5-7: Lumen/Watt for randomly chosen bulbs ...... 58 Table 5-8: Limit values for some light sources in RoHS compared with recommended mercury levels in EU GPP criteria for indoor lighting ...... 60 Table 8-1: Comparison of resource efficiency and mercury content per 10.000 hours lifespan show significant advantages of linear T5 and T8 lamps with long life time compared to lamps with normal lifetime (examples) ...... 107 Table 8-2: Typical parameters of lamps falling under Ex. 2(a)(1,2,3, and 5) ...... 109 Table 8-3: Data regarding lamp sales and respective Hg quantities placed on the market ...... 110 Table 8-4: Limit values for some light sources in RoHS compared with recommended mercury levels in EU GPP criteria for indoor lighting ...... 118 Table 9-1: Typical parameters of lamps falling under Ex. 2(b)(3) ...... 134 Table 9-2: Market and mercury content of lamps covered by the Exemptions 1(e), 2(b)(2), 2(b)(3), 2(b)(4) and 4(a) of RoHS Annex III ...... 134 Table 10-1 Non-exhaustive list of fluorescent lamps falling under Ex. 2(b)(4) ...... 146 Table 12-1: Non-exhaustive list of lamps falling in exemption 4(a) ...... 177 Table 12-2 Comparison of discharge lamps UVC with LED UVC lamps ...... 181

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions xlv

Table 14-1: World and European market trend (in million pieces) for HID and HPS lamps according to VHK & VITO report ...... 209 Table 14-2: Comparative data for Hg-free, Hg-poor and standard dosed HPS lamps, related to efficacy and lumen maintenance ...... 219 Table 15-1: Lamp types and properties ...... 226 Table 15-2: MH abbreviations ...... 226 Table 15-3: Temperature measurement of common metal halide lamps...... 234 Table 15-4: Examples of an LED replacement and MH lamps illustrating the problems with lamp size ...... 235 Table 15-5: Examples of HPM reference lamps, HPS- and CMH-substitutes, and LED retrofit lamps ...... 242 Table 15-6: Efficacies of MH lamps existing on the market, compared to the minimum efficacies requested by regulation 245/2009 (EcoDesign) from April 2017...... 243 Table 16-1:Non-exhaustive list of examples of lamps and applications falling under Ex. 4(f)...... 250 Table 16-2: Overview of Hg pressure in different lamp types ...... 254 Table 16-3 Estimation of the amount of mercury put on the market per year in lamps covered by exemption 4(f) ...... 260 Table 16-4: Spectral output of medium pressure mercury lamps ...... 264 Table 16-5: Spectra of 4 different UV LED lamp types ...... 264 Table 16-6: LEDs with a typical peak wavelength ...... 265 Table 20-1: Summary of the justification for exemption ...... 346 Table 21-1: Overview of applications and stakeholder inputs related to exemption 7(a) ...... 370 Table 21-2: Required performance of HMPS solder and specific properties of lead ...... 374 Table 21-3: Uses of LHMPS ...... 382 Table 21-4: Composition and melting temperatures of main lead-free solders ...... 392 Table 21-5: Properties of lead-free solders with solidus line temperatures of 250 °C or higher ...... 393 Table 22-1: Overview of requests for the continuation of exemption 7c-I and application- specific wordings ...... 428 Table 22-2: Example applications of lead in exemption 7c(I) ...... 433 Table 22-3: Example applications of glass containing lead ...... 435 Table 22-4: Essential characteristics of PZT ceramics ...... 449 Table 22-5: Test results of lead-free alternatives to leaded solder glass ...... 476

xlvi

Table 22-6: Test results of lead-free glasses ...... 477 Table 23-1: Estimated amount of lead used in HVC ...... 505 Table 24-1: Overview of Hafnia-based FeFET (red) performance...... 527 Table 24-2: Comparative table between PZT- and BST-based capacitors ...... 531 Table 25-1: Sensata substitution of cadmium product history ...... 546 Table 25-2: Temperature sensing control product test summary 2007 to 2014...... 547 Table 25-3: Time plan for the phase out of cadmium ...... 548 Table 25-4: Conversion plan for cadmium-free switches in Marquardt tools ...... 549 Table 27-1: Shipments of FCP in various types of EEE ...... 588 Table 27-2: Amount of Lead in FCP other than FCOL ...... 590 Table 27-3: Failure rates of lead-free and lead C4 bumps in tests ...... 593 Table 29-1: Use of Cd-based printing inks on glass specified in standards: ...... 652 Table 30-1: Tested solders and results...... 667 Table 30-2: Test results of PdAg-plated discoidal MLCC soldered with lead-free solders ...... 670 Table 31-1: Comparison of properties of lead crystal to lead-free crystal and and sodalime crystal ...... 686 Table 31-2: Example of 3 different production flows (in green) for 3 luminaire pieces.. 693 Table 31-3: Summary of aspects related to Ex. 29 raised in stakeholder contributions . 699 Table 34-1: Chemical composition of the tested Pb-free ZnB glasses ...... 742 Table 34-2: Experimental electrical test results of lead-free glasses...... 743 Table 34-3: Result of high reliability testing results of the lead-free samples ...... 744 Table 34-4: High reliability testing results of the lead control ...... 744

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions xlvii

Figure 3-1: Relation of REACH categories and lists to other chemical substances ...... 5 Figure 4-1: Mercury content of fluorescent lamps ...... 12 Figure 4-2: Design rules for mercury dosing in fluorescent lamps, schematically showing the process of setting RoHS limit values based on insights in mercury consumption and mercury dosing...... 14 Figure 4-3: Collection rate of lamps in Europe compared to the average amount of lamps placed on the market between 2010 and 2019 ...... 22 Figure 5-1: Demonstrative comparisons of CFL lamps and LED alternative lamps ...... 52 Figure 5-2: Demonstration of incompatibility of LED alternative lamps with luminaires designed for multiple lamps ...... 53 Figure 5-3: Examples of omnidirectional LED lamps ...... 58 Figure 7-1: Examples of CFL 1(f) lamps and applications ...... 88 Figure 7-2: Classification of UV radiation ...... 97 Figure 9-1: Drawings/pictures of T9 circular and T8 U-shaped lamps ...... 133 Figure 11-1; Examples of lamps covered by Ex. 3(a-c) ...... 163 Figure 11-2: Technical schematic of CCFL and EEFL Lamps ...... 164 Figure 12-1: Function of mercury in lamps ...... 179 Figure 12-2 Classification of UV radiation ...... 183 Figure 12-3: Example spectrum of a low pressure mercury discharge ...... 184 Figure 13-1: Construction of a HPS lamp with increased colour rendering ...... 190 Figure 13-2: Different formats of HPS lamps with increased colour rendering: Edison .. 192 Figure 13-3: Spectra of an Hg-free and an improved CRI HPS lamp ...... 195 Figure 13-4: Spectra of an Hg-free HPS lamp with increased Xe pressure ...... 196 Figure 14-1: Construction of a high pressure HPS lamp ...... 206 Figure 14-2: Different formats of HPS lamps: tubular clear, ovoid coated and clear double-ended ...... 207 Figure 14-3: Amalgam doses of different types of HPS lamps on the market ...... 208 Figure 14-4: Spectra of a Hg-containing and a Hg-free HPS lamp ...... 210 Figure 14-5: Luminous efficacy and lumen maintenance of three types of HPS lamps .. 211 Figure 14-6: Typical advertised LED retrofit lamp for HPS lamp replacement ...... 213 Figure 14-7: Luminaire efficiency of HPS (NaHP), ceramic metal halide (MHHP-Cr) and LED ...... 215 Figure 15-1: Metal halide lamps...... 225 Figure 15-2: Historical sales of metal halide lamps, EU28 all sectors ...... 228

xlviii

Figure 15-3: Spectrum change with mercury content ...... 232 Figure 15-4: Illustration of possible ceramic vs quartz lamp size differences ...... 240 Figure 16-1 Chart on the hierarchy of lamps and exemptions ...... 255 Figure 16-2: Light sensitivity curve of plants...... 258 Figure 18-1: Cracks in bismuth containing steel wire rods after rolling ...... 294 Figure 18-2: Tool wear by free cutting steels with different Pb content ...... 295 Figure 18-3: Cutting forces (CF) and feed forces (FF) of free cutting steels with different Pb content in dry cutting conditions (left: 100 m/min, right: 130 m/min) ...... 296 Figure 18-4: Application examples of the lead-free steel developed by NSSMC ...... 301 Figure 18-5: Chemical composition of the lead-free free cutting steel developed by NSSMC ...... 302 Figure 18-6: Supply chain of free cutting steel ...... 305 Figure 18-7: Effect of Pb reduction in steel alloy on production rate in a component production test ...... 306 Figure 19.1: Al recycling options and Al cascade recycling ...... 329 Figure 20-1: Terminals made of ecobrass ...... 357 Figure 21-1: Electrical resistivity and melting points of elements (wide temperature range) ...... 375 Figure 21-2: Electrical resistivity and melting points by element (narrow temperature range) ...... 376 Figure 21-3: Thermal conductivity and melting points by element (wide temperature range) ...... 376 Figure 21-4: Thermal conductivity and melting points by element (narrow temperature range) ...... 377 Figure 21-5: Young's modulus (E) by melting points (wide temperature range)...... 377 Figure 21-6: Young's modulus (E) by melting points (narrow temperature range) ...... 378 Figure 21-7: Standard electrode and melting points of elements (wide temperature range) ...... 378 Figure 21-8: Standard electrode and melting points of elements (narrow temperature range) ...... 379 Figure 21-9: Standard free energy of metal oxide formation and melting points of elements (wide temperature range) ...... 379 Figure 21-10: Standard free energy of metal oxide formation and melting points of elements (narrow temperature range) ...... 380 Figure 21-11: Thermistor requirement for LHMPS ...... 381

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions xlix

Figure 21-12: Schematic view of potentiometer with HMP lead (Pb) solder visible from the outside ...... 383 Figure 21-13: Schematic cross sectional view of a power semiconductor ...... 383 Figure 21-14: Schematic cross sectional view of internal connection of semiconductor 384 Figure 21-15: Schematic view of a capacitor with lead wire ...... 384 Figure 21-16: Schematic view of a HID lamp ...... 385 Figure 21-17: Oven lamp with LHMPS ...... 385 Figure 21-18: Schematic view of a circuit module component ...... 386 Figure 21-19: Schematic view of a crystal resonator ...... 387 Figure 21-20: Inner diameter of a typical high power woofer voice coil ...... 388 Figure 21-21: Outer diameter of a typical high power woofer voice coil ...... 389 Figure 21-22: Calculation of LHMPS solders in the EU ...... 390 Figure 21-23: Relationship diagram of solders and melting temperatures ...... 394 Figure 21-24: Compression bonded contact systems for very high power semiconductor systems ...... 396 Figure 21-25: Material transition process ...... 403 Figure 21-26: Cycle time to conversion ...... 404 Figure 22-1: Lead glass in high voltage diodes and on silicon diode dies ...... 438 Figure 22-2: Ferrocelectric materials and pyroelectric effects ...... 440 Figure 22-3: Laser diode package (left) and cross section of its window cap (right) ...... 442 Figure 22-4: Classification of ceramic materials and their main uses...... 447 Figure 22-5: Phase diagram with morphotropic phase boundary of PZT ...... 448 Figure 22-6: Performance comparison of lead-free and PZT ceramics...... 451 Table 22-7: Comparison of material properties of ceramics ...... 454 Figure 22-8: Schematic view of a high voltage “Superectifier ®” diode with glass as part of the package ...... 463 Figure 22-9: Wire wound resistors ...... 464 Figure 22-10: Cracks (left) and delamination (right) in enamel wire wound resistor coatings ...... 465 Figure 22-11: NTCS and NTHS SMD thermistors ...... 466 Figure 22-12: Lead-silicate class in thermistors ...... 467 Figure 22-13: NTC ceramic chips with thick film silver electrodes ...... 470 Figure 22-14: MEMS device with lead-containing glass (Arrows) ...... 471

l

Figure 22-15: EU critical raw materials 2013 ...... 479 Figure 23-1: Switching power supply ...... 511 Figure 23-2: Circuit breaker ...... 513 Figure 24-1: Typical thin film capacitor configurations...... 520 Figure 24-2: Trench capacitors ...... 521 Figure 24-3: Use of PZT-based thin-film technologies in wireless and other devices ..... 523 Figure 24-4: PZT thin-film in FRAM ...... 524 Figure 24-5: New material and new technology for integration of high density decoupling factors ...... 529 Figure 25-1: Uses of cadmium ...... 541 Figure 25-2: Time plan for customer qualification of thermal sensing controls and thermal motor protectors ...... 551 Figure 26-1: Absorption cooling system schematic ...... 566 Figure 27-1: Outline of a flip chip package...... 585 Figure 27-2: Schematic views of complex flip chip packages ...... 586 Figure 27-3: Effects of thermomechanical stress in FCP ...... 587 Figure 27-4: Increasing thermomechanical stress with increasing DNP ...... 587 Figure 27-5: Overview of the development of FCP ...... 592 Figure 27-6: Dynamic mechanical analyses of underfiller with high glass transition temperature ...... 595 Figure 27-7: Solder mask cracks and solder extrusion in large die FCP ...... 596 Figure 27-8: Stacked die FCP ...... 597 Figure 27-9: Example of FCOL ...... 599 Figure 27-10: Fractured solder joints in FCOL FCP ...... 600 Figure 27-11: Comparison of FCP and wire-bonded BGA ...... 601 Figure 28-1: Examples of indoor tanning equipment ...... 618 Figure 28-2: Example of a typical UVA/UVB spectrum ...... 619 Figure 28-3: Exposure time vs. effective irradiance ...... 620 Figure 28-4: Emission spectrum of a cerium-doped phosphor – UV lamp ...... 623 Figure 28-5: Warning text, equivalency code and marking examples for lamps ...... 632 Figure 29-1: Examples of lead-containing and lead-free marking ...... 637 Figure 29-2: Example of decoration of borosilicate glass with black ink...... 643

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions li

Figure 29-3: Comparison of lead-free (left) and lead-containing (right) ink. On the left side the ink shows a so called “chipping”, i.e. peeling off from the substrate (borosilicate glass)...... 644 Figure 29-4: Enamels on borosilicate glass giving bright yellow (left) or orange (right) colourings ...... 644 Figure 30-1: EMI filter outline (left) and examples of EMI filters and assemblies ...... 662 Figure 30-2: Test sample without cracks (50Pb/50In, left) and sample with long bow and corner cracks (SnAgCu, arrows, right) ...... 668 Figure 30-3: Typical stray capacitor discoidal construction ...... 669 Figure 31-1: Example EEE in which lead crystal glass is used ...... 681 Figure 31-2: Viscosity as a function of temperature for several glass types ...... 684 Figure 32-1: Location of the seal frit in the laser tube assembly ...... 711 Figure 32-2: Lead-based (left) and bismuth-based frit (right) after processing ...... 714 Figure 32-3: Power degradation of lead-free plasma tubes (yellow) vs. historical average with lead (blue dotted line) ...... 716 Figure 34-1: Sketch of a high voltage diode based on zinc borate glass ...... 737 Figure 34-2: Cross-cut HVD (left) and analysis of the glass (right, bubbles marked with yellow circles) ...... 741 Figure 34-3: Distribution of breakdown voltage (BVR) and leakage current (IR) ...... 743 Figure 34-4: Oven lamp failure ...... 805

lii

1.0 Project Set-up

Assignment of project tasks to Oeko-Institut, started 29 December 2014. The overall project has been led by Carl-Otto Gensch. At Fraunhofer IZM the contact person is Otmar Deubzer. The project team at Oeko-Institut consists of the technical experts Yifaat Baron and Katja Moch. Eunomia, represented by Adrian Gibbs, have the role of ensuring quality management.

2.0 Scope

The scope of the project covers the evaluation of twenty-nine exemptions for which requests for renewal have been submitted to the European Commission. An overview of the exemption requests is given in Table 1-1 below. In the course of the project, a stakeholder consultation was conducted. The stakeholder consultation was launched on 21 August 2015 and held for a period of 8 weeks, thus concluding on 16 October 2015. The specific project website was used in order to keep stakeholders informed on the progress of work: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info. The consultation held during the project was carried out according to the principles and requirements of the European Commission. Stakeholders who had registered at the website were informed through email notifications about new steps within the project. Information concerning the consultation was provided on the project website, including a general guidance document, the applicants’ documents for each of the exemption requests, results of earlier evaluations where relevant, a specific questionnaire and a link to the EU CIRCA website. All non-confidential stakeholder comments, submitted during the consultation, were made available on the RoHS Evaluation website and on the EU CIRCABC website (Communication and Information Resource Centre for Administrations, Businesses and Citizens).1 The evaluation of the stakeholder contributions led to further consultation including, inter alia, engaging with stakeholders in further discussion, further exchanges in order to clarify remaining questions, cross-checking with regard to the accuracy of technical arguments, and checks in respect of confidentiality issues. Meetings held in the context of the exemptions are detailed in the specific exemption reports.

1 EU CIRCABC website: https://circabc.europa.eu (Browse categories > European Commission > Environment > RoHS 2014 Evaluations Review, at top left, click on "Library")

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 1

The exemptions requested for renewal were evaluated according to the various criteria (Cf. Section E.1.0 for details). The evaluations of each exemption appear in the following chapters. The information provided by the applicants and by stakeholders is summarised in the first sections. This includes a general description of the application and requested exemption (requested renewal or proposed amendment), a summary of the arguments made for justifying the exemption, information provided concerning possible alternatives and additional aspects raised by the applicants and other stakeholders. In some cases, reference is also made to information submitted by applicants and stakeholders in previous evaluations, in cases where a similar request has been reviewed or where a renewal has been requested of a request reviewed in the past. The Critical Review follows these sections, in which the submitted information is discussed, to clarify how the consultants evaluate the various information and what conclusions and recommendations have been made. For more detail, the general requirements for the evaluation of exemption requests may be found in the technical specifications of the project.2

2 Cf. under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_8/RoHS_Pack8_Technical_specificat ions.pdf

2

3.0 Links from the Directive to the REACH Regulation Article 5 of the RoHS 2 Directive 2011/65/EU on “Adaptation of the Annexes to scientific and technical progress” provides for the: “inclusion of materials and components of EEE for specific applications in the lists in Annexes III and IV, provided that such inclusion does not weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006”. RoHS 2 does not further elaborate the meaning of this clause. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 regulates the safe use of chemical substances, and is commonly referred to as the REACH Regulation since it deals with Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances. REACH, for its part, addresses substances of concern through processes of authorisation and restriction: · Substances that may have serious and often irreversible effects on human health and the environment can be added to the candidate list to be identified as Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs). Following the identification as SVHC, a substance may be included in the Authorisation list, available under Annex XIV of the REACH Regulation: “List of Substances Subject to Authorisation”. If a SVHC is placed on the Authorisation list, companies (manufacturers and importers) that wish to continue using it, or continue placing it on the market, must apply for an authorisation for a specified use. Article 22 of the REACH Regulation states that: “Authorisations for the placing on the market and use should be granted by the Commission only if the risks arising from their use are adequately controlled, where this is possible, or the use can be justified for socio- economic reasons and no suitable alternatives are available, which are economically and technically viable.” · If the use of a substance (or compound) in specific articles, or its placement on the market in a certain form, poses an unacceptable risk to human health and/or to the environment that is not adequately controlled, the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) may restrict its use, or placement on the market. These restrictions are laid down in Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation: “Restrictions on the Manufacture, Placing on the Market and Use of Certain Dangerous Substances, Mixtures and Articles”. The provisions of the restriction may be made subject to total or partial bans, or other restrictions, based on an assessment of those risks. The approach adopted in this report is that once a substance has been included into the regulation related to authorization or restriction of substances and articles under REACH,

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 3

the environmental and health protection afforded by REACH may be weakened in cases where, an exemption would be granted for these uses under the provisions of RoHS. This is essentially the same approach as has already been adopted for the re-evaluation of some existing RoHS exemptions 7(c)-IV, 30, 31 and 40,3 as well as for the evaluation of a range of requests assessed through previous projects in respect of RoHS 2.4 Furthermore, substances for which an authorisation or restriction process is already underway are also reviewed, so that future developments may be considered where relevant. When evaluating the exemption requests, with regard to REACH compliance, we have checked whether the substance / or its substitutes are: · on the list of substances proposed for the adoption to the Candidate List (the Registry of Intentions); · on the list of substances of very high concern (SVHCs- the Candidate List); · in the recommendations of substances for Annex XIV (recommended to be added to the Authorisation List); · listed in REACH Annex XIV itself (The Authorization List); or · listed in REACH Annex XVII (the List of Restrictions). As the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is the driving force among regulatory authorities in implementing the EU's chemicals legislation, the ECHA website has been used as the reference point for the aforementioned lists, as well as for the exhaustive register of the Amendments to the REACH Legal Text. Figure 3-1 shows the relationship between the two processes and categories. Substances included in the red areas may only be used when certain specifications and or conditions are fulfilled.

3 See Zangl, S.; Blepp, M.; Deubzer, O. (2012) Adaptation to Scientific and Technical Progress under Directive 2011/65/EU - Transferability of previously reviewed exemptions to Annex III of Directive 2011/65/EU, Final Report, Oeko-Institut e. V. and Fraunhofer IZM, February 17, 2012, http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/Rohs_V/Re- evaluations_transfer_RoHS_I_RoHS_II_final.pdf 4 Gensch, C., Baron, Y., Blepp, M., Deubzer, O., Manhart, A. & Moch, K. (2012) Assistance to the Commission on technological, socio-economic and cost-benefit assessment related to exemptions from the substance restrictions in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS Directive), Final Report, Oeko- Institut e. V. and Fraunhofer IZM, 21.12.2012 http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/Rohs_V/RoHS_V_Final_report_12_Dec_2012_fi nal.pdf

4

Figure 3 -1: Relation of REACH categories and lists to other chemical substances

Chemical Substances and Compounds

Registry of Intentions (1) Candidate List (2) CLP Regulation Process REACH Regulation for Proposing Recommendations for Restriction Process Classification & Authorisation List (3) Labelling of a Substance Annex XVII Restriction List (5) Annex XIV Harmonised Authorisation Classification & List (4) Labelling

The following bullet points explain in detail the above mentioned lists and where they can be accessed: · Member States Competent Authorities (MSCAs) / the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), on request by the Commission, may prepare Annex XV dossiers for identification of Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC), Annex XV dossiers for proposing a harmonised Classification and Labelling, or Annex XV dossiers proposing restrictions. The aim of the public Registry of Intentions is to allow interested parties to be aware of the substances for which the authorities intend to submit Annex XV dossiers and, therefore, facilitates timely preparation of the interested parties for commenting later in the process. It is also important to avoid duplication of work and encourage co- operation between Member States when preparing dossiers. Note that the Registry of Intentions is divided into three separate sections: listing new intentions; intentions still subject to the decision making process; and withdrawn intentions. The registry of intentions is available at the ECHA website at: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/addressing-chemicals-of- concern/registry-of-intentions; · The identification of a substance as a Substance of Very High Concern and its inclusion in the Candidate List is the first step in the authorisation procedure. The Candidate List is available at the ECHA website at http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/candidate-list-table; · The last step of the procedure, prior to inclusion of a substance into Annex XIV (the Authorisation list), involves ECHA issuing a Recommendation of substances for Annex XIV. The ECHA recommendations for inclusion in the Authorisation List are available at the ECHA website at

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 5

http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/addressing-chemicals-of- concern/authorisation/recommendation-for-inclusion-in-the-authorisation- list/authorisation-list; · Once a decision is made, substances may be added to the Authorisation List available under Annex XIV of the REACH Regulation. The use of substances appearing on this list is prohibited unless an Authorisation for use in a specific application has been approved. The Annex can be found in the consolidated version of the REACH Legal Text (see below); · In parallel, if a decision is made concerning the Restriction on the use of a substance in a specific article, or concerning the restriction of its provision on the European market, then a restriction is formulated to address the specific terms, and this shall be added to Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation. The Annex can be found in the consolidated version of the REACH Legal Text (see below); and · As of the 28 of September, 2015, the last amendment of the REACH Legal Text was dated from 28 May 2015 (Commission Regulation (EU) No 2015/830) and so the updated consolidated version of the REACH Legal Text, dated 01.06.2015, was used to check Annex XIV and XVII: The consolidated version is presented at the ECHA website: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/regulations/reach/legislation.

Relevant annexes and processes related to the REACH Regulation have been cross- checked to clarify: · In what cases granting an exemption could “weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006” (Article 5(1)(a), pg.1) · Where processes related to the REACH regulation should be followed to understand where such cases may become relevant in the future; In this respect, restrictions and authorisations as well as processes that may lead to their initiation, have been reviewed, in respect of where RoHS Annex II substances are mentioned (i.e. lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE).5 Compiled information in this respect has been included, with short clarifications where relevant, in Tables A.1-5, which appear in Appendix A.1.0. The information has further been cross-checked in relation to the various exemptions evaluated in the course of this project. This has been done to clarify that the Article 5(1)(a) pg.1 threshold-criteria quoted above is complied with in cases where an

5 This review currently does not address the 4 phthalates, DEHP, BBP, DBP and DIBP, which according to Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2015/863 of 31 March 2015, have been added to the Annex. Information regarding these substances shall be added in future reviews.

6

exemption is to be granted / its duration renewed/ its formulation amended/ or where it is to be revoked and subsequently to expire as an exemption. The considerations in this regard are addressed in each of the separate chapters in which the exemption evaluations are documented (Chapters 4.0 through 34.0) under the relevant section titled “REACH Compliance – Relation to the REACH Regulation” (Sections 4.5.1 through 34.4.1).

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 7

17.0 Exemption 5(b): "Lead in glass of fluorescent tubes not exceeding 0,2 % by weight”

Declaration In the sections that precede the “Critical Review” the phrasings and wordings of stakeholders’ explanations and arguments have been adopted from the documents provided by the stakeholders as far as required and reasonable in the context of the evaluation at hand. Formulations have been altered in cases where it was necessary to maintain the readability and comprehensibility of the text. These sections are based exclusively on information provided by applicants and stakeholders, unless otherwise stated.

Acronyms and Definitions EEE Electrical and Electronic Equipment EoL End of Life LEU LightingEurope Pb Lead PbO Lead oxide

17.1 Background LightingEurope (LEU)474 has applied for the renewal of exemption 5(b) related to the presence of lead in the glass of discharge lamps. In the past, leaded glass used to contain ca. 20 % lead, added in the form of PbO for functional reasons in the production process. However lead is no longer added intentionally during lamp glass production. In principle lead in the glass of fluorescent tubes has successfully been phased out by the lighting industry several years ago. Nonetheless, recycled glass from end of life lamps is used

474 LEU (2015a), LightingEurope, Request to renew Exemption 5(b) under Annex III of the RoHS Directive 2011/65/EU Lead in glass of fluorescent tubes not exceeding 0.2 % by weight, submitted 15.1.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_5_b_/5_b__LE_RoHS _Exemption_Req_final.pdf

276

today in the manufacture of new glass tubes (e.g. discharge glass tubes). As this glass can contain differing amounts of lead, a maximum content of 0.2 % by weight lead may still be present in the glass of fluorescent lamps. LEU thus requests the renewal of the exemption for use in lamps falling under Cat. 5, with the following wording formulation and for the maximum duration: “Lead in glass of fluorescent tubes not exceeding 0.2 % by weight”

17.1.1 Amount of Lead Used under the Exemption According to LEU475, the lead content in glass of fluorescent tubes can be up to 0.2% if recycling glass is used in the glass production process. The homogenous material is glass. Producers of lamp glass tubes are continuously monitoring the lead content in recycling glass. Regarding the amount of lead under the exemption, the applicant states: “The amount of intentionally added substance entering the EU-28 market annually through application for which the exemption is requested: 0 tons. According to LightingEuropes’ experience in average of all low pressure discharge lamps, the legal threshold of 0.1% wt in homogenous material glass is not exceeded. Theoretically assuming a lead content of 500 ppm average, roughly estimated 25 tons of lead would enter the EU-28 market bound in lamp glass. Worst case would be 100 tons assuming an average content of 0.2% (Basis of the rough estimation: ca 680 Mio fluorescent lamps put on the EU-28 market per year (Eurostat data for 2013), average 0,1 kg weight per lamp; ca. 75% average glass per lamp = 50.000 tons; hereof 0.05/0.2% lead)” 476

17.2 Description of Requested Exemption The exemption covers lamp glass of fluorescent tubes. Fluorescent lamps are low pressure discharge lamps in the scope of RoHS Directive, addressed in Annex I as category 5 (lighting equipment). The lamp glass used in low pressure discharge lamps is mainly soda-lime glass (soft glass). It can be understood that though lead was used in the manufacture of lamp tube glass in the past for functional reasons, it was successfully phased out years ago and is no longer intentionally added in manufacture. It is however present in the tube glass of new discharge lamps in light of its presence as an impurity in recycled glass, originating from end-of-life (EoL) lamps. Such glass is used as a raw material in the manufacture process of new lamp glass. 477 LEU478 explains that fluorescent lamps have long lifetimes and that since the use of lead in the glass of fluorescent tubes was allowed in the EU until 2010 and is still allowed in

475 Op. cit. LEU (2015a) 476 Op. cit. LEU (2015a) 477 Op. cit. LEU (2015a) 478 Op. cit. LEU (2015a)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 277

most countries outside the EU, e.g. in China, that lead-containing recycled glass will be available for a foreseeable long term, probably decades. This is especially valid if the lamp glass is produced outside the EU. Lead in the glass is on the other hand safe as it will not leave the glass matrix under any circumstance. The requested maximum content of lead is only slightly above the RoHS threshold limit for lead in homogenous materials. In a later communication, LEU details that under the first RoHS Directive, coming into effect in 2006, the use of Pb in glass for fluorescent lamps was exempted. In the second edition, this exemption was restricted to 0.2%. Thus a significant reduction was realized, leading to the current situation that glass for fluorescent lamps is still diluted with a small amount of Pb, sometimes slightly higher than the RoHS restriction of lead above 0.1% by weight. Hence in the long term, a declining trend of installed lamps with lead- containing glass is expected. On the other hand the market for fluorescent lamps is decreasing, which could lead to higher amounts of lamps or lamp glass produced outside the EU. The rejection of the exemption could lead to the limitation of the use of recycled glass (from lamps coming from the market) in lamp glass production.479

17.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption Lead has been added in fluorescent lamp glass production for decades in the form of PbO. Use of lead glass in lamps was for a long time standard technology. Adding lead to the glass in the past allowed better processability in all steps of glass smelting and glass soldering, leading to lower failure rates. Due to changes in the production processes lead in glass could be phased out in Europe during the last 4-8 years. However, lead can be found in the glass matrix of newly manufactured low pressure discharge lamps, if lead- contaminated recycling glass is used for glass production. In such cases the glass tubes can be contaminated with minimum amounts of lead, so that the general RoHS limit of 0.1% limit can slightly be exceeded, up to 0.2%. Depending on the levels of lead in the recycled material, the contents of lead in new discharge tube glass may vary. Thus, LEU explains that, despite internal measurements that show that most lamps do not exceed the threshold of 0.1% in the glass, the current threshold of 0.2% by weight is still considered to be necessary to ensure compliance where the 0.1% level is exceeded. The use of recycled glass is explained to significantly reduce the energy consumption of glass production (-30% for the recycled glass amount according to experience of a LightingEurope member company).480 As it can be understood that the use of lead in the manufacture of lamp glass is not regulated in all countries outside the EU, LEU was asked, how it can be guaranteed that the presence of unintentional Pb in lamps manufactured with non-EU glass lamp

479 LEU (2015b), Lighting Europe, Answers to 1st Questionnaire Exemption No. 5(b) (renewal request), submitted 28.8.2015, available under http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_5_b_/Ex_5_b__Lighti ngEurope_1st_Clarification_LE_Answers_20150828.pdf 480 Op. cit. LEU (2015a)

278

recyclate (which may have higher lead levels) is similar to levels in glass tube manufactured with EU recyclate, or is at least within the allowances addressed in Ex. 5(b). LEU481 explained in this regard that each manufacturer must ensure RoHS conformity of products by suitable measures e.g. according EN50581:2012. This includes the glass components. This requirement to ensure conformity applies evenly to different parts, different materials, different components, etc. LEU elaborated that glass coming from different glass furnaces may have differences in composition due to the specific mix of cullet and raw material, but not regarding the presence of lead. In general new produced lamp glass in Europe is lead-free (i.e. lead is not intentionally added - consultants comment). Fluorescent lamps put on the EU market since September 2010 have to be made of lead-free glass. No systematic differences could be recognized by LEU members regarding the origin of the glass.

17.3.1 Possible Alternatives for Substitution LEU 482 states that there is no alternative. Lead in the glass of fluorescent tubes in amounts <0.2% has no intended or unintended function. It is a contaminant originating from the use of recycled glass as a raw material in glass production. There is no intended addition of lead or lead compounds other than in the form of recycled glass. However, manufacturers of lamp glass tubes use recycled glass in order to save resources and energy. The rejection of the exemption could lead to the limitation of the use of recycled glass for lamp glass production as well as to higher costs related to the use of resources and energy consumption. LEU also mentions that a limitation of the use of recycled glass in lamp glass production could result in an increase in the number of random conformity checks necessary, especially for lamps imported from outside the EU. If quality controls would reveal batches of lamps exceeding 0.1% lead, these lamps would not be allowed to be marketed in the EU-28. These non-conforming batches would then be exported out of the EU-28 or would need to be scrapped (recycled) directly before the lamps are used if export is not possible or too expensive (repackaging).

17.3.2 Environmental Arguments According to one source a reduction of energy consumption of 2.5% per every 10% of recycled glass is achieved (lamp glass production of LightingEurope member OSRAM GmbH, Augsburg, Germany). Typically in the OSRAM GmbH, Augsburg glass production plant, 30 - 40 % recycling glass is used. Technically (theoretically) a recycled glass content of up to 80% is estimated to be possible, though such high amounts require that the recycled glass is nearly identical to the manufactured glass. The source of recycled glass is therefore mainly glass from lamp recycling. The content of lead (as well as mercury) is normally measured regularly in the above mentioned plant. 483

481 Op. cit LEU (2015b) 482 Op. cit. LEU (2015a) 483 Op. cit. LEU (2015a)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 279

LEU484 further explains that lamps are in the scope of EU Directives 2002/96/EC - WEEE and 2012/19/EU– WEEE Recast. All lamps need to be collected and recycled, regardless of the levels of lead in lamp glass. Take back systems are installed in all EU Member States to facilitate the collection and the proper handling of lamps at end-of-life (further details in the exemption renewal application dossier, but are not detailed here as they concern lamps in general and do not provide specific details as to the fate of lead from the glass of lamps.

17.3.3 Socio-economic Impact of Substitution According to the applicant there are no health impacts expected, irrespective of the lead content being below 0.2% (as requested) or below 0.1% (the RoHS threshold for Pb), as the lead is bound in glass. In parallel, as the use of recycled glass reduces the use of virgin resources and the consumption of energy, an increase in direct production costs could be expected should the exemption be revoked.485

17.4 Stakeholder Contributions A single contribution was made during the stakeholder consultation regarding Ex. 5(b). The Test and Measurement Coalition (TMC)486 includes the seven leading companies in the sector representing roughly 60% of the global production of industrial test and measurement products. It is TMCs’ understanding that according to the RoHS Directive, the exemptions listed in Annex III and Annex IV for which no expiry date has been specified, apply to sub-category 9 industrial with a validity period of 7 years, starting from 22 July 2017. This is also said to be explained in the RoHS FAQ, p. 26 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/pdf/faq.pdf. TMC, thus does not interpret the current exemption evaluation related to package 9 to concern category 9 industrial equipment, for which the exemptions evaluated in pack 9 are understood to remain valid, and has thus not provided exemption specific information.

17.5 Critical Review

17.5.1 REACH Compliance – Relation to the REACH Regulation Appendix A.1.0 of this report lists Entry 30 in Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation, stipulating that lead compounds shall not be placed on the market, or used, as substances, constituents of other substances, or in mixtures for supply to the general public. A prerequisite to granting the requested exemption would therefore be to

484 Op. cit. LEU (2015a) 485 Op. cit. LEU (2015a) 486 TMC (2015), Test & Measurement Coalition, General comments related to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 16.10.2015, available under http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_1_a- e_/General_Contribution_Test___Measurement_Coalition_package_9_exemptions_20151016.pdf

280

establish whether the intended use of lead in this exemption request might weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by the REACH regulation. In the consultants’ understanding, the restriction for substances under Entry 30 of Annex XVII does not apply to the use of lead in this application. Pb present as an impurity in the glass of lamps manufactured with recycled glass from EoL lamps, in the consultants’ point of view is not a supply of a lead compounds as a substance, mixture or constituent of other mixtures to the general public. Pb is part of an article and as such, Entry 30 of Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation would not apply. Entry 63 of Annex XVII also restricts the use of lead and its compounds. Its restriction in jewellery would not apply in the case of this exemption. Paragraph 7 restricts the use of lead above certain concentrations in in articles supplied to the general public, where these may be placed in the mouth by children during normal use. Paragraph 8(k) however excludes articles in scope of RoHS 2 from this restriction, which thus does not apply to this case. No other entries, relevant for the use of lead in the requested exemption could be identified in Annex XIV and Annex XVII (status January 2015). Based on the current status of Annexes XIV and XVII of the REACH Regulation, the requested exemption would not weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by the REACH Regulation. An exemption could therefore be granted if other criteria of Art. 5(1)(a) apply.

17.5.2 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution, environmental arguments From the available information it can be understood that the presence of lead in discharge lamp tube glass is a result of the use of recycled material originating from recycled lamps in the production of new lamp glass tubes. Lead is not added intentionally and in this sense a substitution does not require the provision of a specific function as such. Though discharge lamp tube glass could be manufactured without the use of recycled material (i.e., a possible form of substitution), this would result in a higher consumption of energy (as well as energy related emissions like greenhouse gas emissions) for the manufacture of the tube glass, as the manufacture of glass from primary material requires higher temperatures for the fusion of raw materials into glass. In this sense, it can be followed that revoking the exemption in favour of this potential substitute would result in a higher environmental impact. In parallel, it can be understood that impacts on health and or the environment related to the presence of lead in lamp tube glass would not be expected, as the lead is encapsulated in the glass and emissions leading to such impacts are not expected.

17.5.3 Stakeholder Contributions The contribution submitted by TMC raises a legal question as to the availability of the current exemption to category 9 equipment. Regardless of TMCs claims as to the availability of Annex III exemptions to sub-category 9 industrial for 7 years starting in 22.7.2017, in the case of Ex. 5(b) the wording formulation limits its applicability to the

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 281

glass of fluorescent tubes. Fluorescent tubes are understood to be a product of the discharge lamp group, which can be used as a component in other equipment. As, stated by the applicant, this product is understood to fall under category 5 and not under Cat. 9. Thus from a practical perspective, in the consultants’ opinion, sub-category 9 industrial equipment would not benefit from the exemption directly, though lamps benefiting from the exemption could be used in Cat. 9 equipment.

17.5.4 The Scope of the Exemption In the consultants view the exemption could be limited to category 5. The applicant has stated that lamps benefiting from Ex. 5(b) fall under category 5 and in the consultants’ view the exemption wording formulation excludes its availability to other EEE components when lamps are used in a specific EEE. Should discharge lamps be in use in equipment falling under categories other than category 5, they would still be understood to fall under Cat. 5 as a component of an EEE and would thus still benefit from the exemption as long as it would be valid. The reduction of the levels of Pb in lamp tube glass is a continuous process, affecting the glass of all lamps manufactured. The consultants thus expect this change to affect the glass of lamps evenly. In other words it is not expected that reduction in the level shall only affect lamps used in some EEE, but not others. Thus, differentiation between categories would not be relevant.

17.5.5 Conclusions Article 5(1)(a) provides that an exemption can be justified if at least one of the following criteria is fulfilled: · their elimination or substitution via design changes or materials and components which do not require any of the materials or substances listed in Annex II is scientifically or technically impracticable; · the reliability of substitutes is not ensured; · the total negative environmental, health and consumer safety impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the total environmental, health and consumer safety benefits thereof. LEU states that there is no substitute as such, however in the consultants view, manufacturing discharge lamp glass from primary materials comprises a valid substitute. According to the statements of LEU, there would also be no problem with the reliability of such glass, which is expected to have comparable performance to lamp glass with up to 0.2 % by weight lead. However, the consultants can follow that discontinuing the use of recycled glass in the manufacture of lamp glass would create negative impacts in relation to the need to use more primary materials (where secondary ones are available) and more energy needed for smelting the glass. In this sense, the consultants conclude that though there may be alternatives in the form of manufacture from primary materials, such alternatives would create negative environmental impacts that arguably outweigh the benefits of this substitute.

282

17.6 Recommendation It is understood that although substitutes may exist, their associated environmental costs would be higher than in the case where the exemption is renewed and a use of up to 0.2% by weight Pb in the glass of discharge lamp tubes is further allowed. In this sense, one of the Article 5(1)(a) criteria is understood to be fulfilled and the renewal of the exemption is thus understood to be justified. It is further observed that the intention of the RoHS Directive restrictions is to reduce the contents of harmful substances in the waste stream and the impacts related thereto. This is evident for example from Recital 8 of the Directive, stating “Restricting the use of those hazardous substances is likely to enhance the possibilities and economic profitability of recycling of waste EEE and decrease the negative impact on the health of workers in recycling plants”. In the case of Pb in the glass of fluorescent tubes, its content, currently as an impurity resulting from the use of recycled lamp glass, is understood not to limit the recycling of such waste, nor the use of such recycled glass as a secondary resource. As it can further be followed that the reduction of lead in recycled glass from EoL lamps is expected to occur only very gradually due to long product lifetimes, the consultants would further recommend extending the exemption for a further five years, in line with the duration limitations addressed in Article 5(2). Though in light of Article 5(2), from a legal perspective, an exclusion of EEE falling under Cat. 8 and 9 from the scope of this exemption may not be possible, the consultants do not see an added benefit from the availability of the exemption to categories other than Cat. 5. In the consultants view, through its formulation, the exemption is already restricted to use in lamps, which fall solely under Cat. 5. Since lamps can be used as a component of other articles, restricting the exemption to this category should not create any disadvantage to manufacturers of products of other categories using discharge lamps as a component. In such cases the Cat. 5 exemption would still be applicable to such lamps used as a component in equipment other than Cat. 5. All the more so as the formulation of the exemption is not to change and it already limits its applicability to lamps which are understood to fall under Cat. 5. If this is acceptable from a legal perspective, the exemption could be limited to Cat. 5. If Cat. 8 and Cat. 9 cannot legally be excluded from these exemptions; duration periods for these categories have been specified in the exemption formulation below.

Exemption 5(b) Duration* For Cat. 5: 21 July 2021 Lead in glass of fluorescent tubes not exceeding 0,2 % For Cat. 8 and Cat. 9: 21 July 2021 by weight For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: 21 July 2023 For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024 Note: As it can be understood that the exemption duration may vary for various categories on the basis of Article 5(2), expiration dates have been specified here for certain categories on the basis of the validity periods specified in Article 5(2) for categories, which are newly in scope.

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 283

17.7 References Exemption 5b LEU (2015a) LightingEurope, Request to renew Exemption 5(b) under Annex III of the RoHS Directive 2011/65/EU Lead in glass of fluorescent tubes not exceeding 0.2 % by weight, submitted 15.1.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_5 _b_/5_b__LE_RoHS_Exemption_Req_final.pdf LEU (2015b) Lighting Europe, Answers to 1st Questionnaire Exemption No. 5(b) (renewal request), submitted 28.8.2015, available under http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_5 _b_/Ex_5_b__LightingEurope_1st_Clarification_LE_Answers_20150828.pdf TMC (2015) Test & Measurement Coalition, General comments related to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 16.10.2015, available under http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_1 _a- e_/General_Contribution_Test___Measurement_Coalition_package_9_exemptions_2 0151016.pdf .

284

18.0 Exemption 6a: "Lead as an alloying element in steel for machining purposes and in galvanised steel containing up to 0,35 % lead by weight"

Declaration In the sections that precede the “Critical Review” the phrasings and wordings of stakeholders’ explanations and arguments have been adopted from the documents provided by the stakeholders as far as required and reasonable in the context of the evaluation at hand. Formulations have been altered in cases where it was necessary to maintain the readability and comprehensibility of the text. These sections are based exclusively on information provided by applicants and stakeholders, unless otherwise stated.

Acronyms and Definitions 11SMn30 Lead-free cutting steel containing high sulphur and also manganese 11SMn37 Same as 11SMn30 but with a higher Mn content 1215 Lead-free low carbon free cutting steel 12L14 Leaded low carbon free cutting steel ECHA European Chemicals Agency EGGA The European General Galvanizers Association EEE Electrical and Electronic Equipment ELV End-of-Life Vehicle EUROFER The European Steel Association KEMI Kemikalieinspektionen, the Swedish Chemicals Agency MnS Manganese(II)sulphide NSSMC Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Corporation Pb Lead tpa Tonnes per annum TMC The Test & Measurement Coalition WEEE Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 285

18.1 Background Exemption 6a covers different uses of lead in steel: the use of lead added as an alloying element in steel for machining purposes and the presence of lead in galvanized steel. According to the European Steel Association (EUROFER) and the European General Galvanizers Association (EGGA),487 lead is added to steel as a machinability enhancer for industrial production. Lead as an alloying element in steel for machining purposes has a lubrication effect that eases deep drilling and high speed operations. This kind of steel is also called free cutting or free machining steel. For the production of free cutting steels, lead provides a good hot workability.488 Galvanisation is the process of applying a protective zinc coating to steel in order to prevent corrosion. The most common form of galvanisation is hot dip galvanisation, where iron or steel articles are galvanised by dipping in a molten bath of zinc or zinc- alloy; a small amount of lead tends to be present in the zinc bath, and hence this the source of lead in the galvanised steel (as discussed further in Section 18.2). Hot dip galvanisation can be done in continuous or batch operation: In hot dip galvanization as a continuous process, the steel is continuously drawn through a bath with a liquid zinc alloy. Individual metal articles are hot dip galvanized by a process called batch galvanizing. Both the continuous and batch processes of hot-dip galvanizing result in a metallurgical bond between zinc and steel. The bonding region is an intermetallic compound, termed the “alloy layer”.489 EGGA490 states that the presence of lead in the continuous galvanizing process is sufficiently low to meet the default requirement of 0.1% Pb. Therefore EUROFER and EGGA491 propose to restrict the exemption to batch hot dip galvanised steel instead of all types of galvanised steel. EUROFER and EGGA492 with the support of a number of organizations have submitted a request for the renewal of the above mentioned exemption with the following wording formulation (the additional wording is underlined): “Lead as an alloying element in steel for machining purposes and in batch hot dip galvanized steel items containing up to 0.35% lead by weight.”

487 EUROFER and EGGA (2015a), European Steel Association (EUROFER) and European General Galvanizers Association (EGGA) (2015a), Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 16.01.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/ Exemption_6_a_/Eurofer/6a_RoHS_Application_Form_6a_16012015-.pdf 488 According to EUROFER and EGGA (2015a and b), steel is being hot-rolled to the required size for a customer from a piece with a larger (as-cast) cross sectional area. 489 Gensch et al. (2009), Carl-Otto Gensch, Oeko-Institut e. V., et al. 20 February (2009), Adaptation to scientific and technical progress under Directive 2002/95/EC: Final Report. With the assistance of Stéphanie Zangl, Rita Groß, Anna Weber, Oeko-Institut e. V. and Otmar Deubzer, Fraunhofer IZM. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_reportl_rohs1_en.pdf 490 EGGA (2016), European General Galvanizers Association (EGGA) (2016), Answers to 3rd Clarification Questions, submitted 01.03.2016. 491 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 492 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a)

286

Besides the associations EUROFER and EGGA, two companies have submitted a renewal request, both referring to the use of lead as an alloying element in steel for machining purposes: · Dunkermotoren493 a manufacturer of electric drives, uses lead based steel alloys in gear parts because of the improved machinability that is achieved by lead. Dunkermotoren requests an exemption period of at least 5 years to allow requalification. Dunkermotoren estimates that if a substitute were available 2 to 5 years would be needed for this purpose. · Sensata Technologies Holland B.V.494 a manufacturer of sensor and control products purchases latching components within the tripping and actuation mechanism from the supply chain.495 Sensata496 generally refers to the function of lead in all alloys covered under Ex. 6 (steel, aluminium and copper) such as improved “micro-machining, electrical conductivity, galvanic corrosion resistance, mechanical relaxation, tribological behaviour etc.”. As for the history of the exemption, it has to be noted that when the RoHS 1 Directive was published in 2002, Exemption 6 covered lead as an alloying element in steels, aluminium and copper.497 After the last revision in 2009498, the exemption was split into three exemptions 6a, 6b and 6c in order to cover each alloy with a separate wording. In the end-of-life vehicles (ELV) Directive 2000/53/EC, the corresponding exemption has been narrowed to refer only to batch hot dip galvanizing processes as a result of the last revision in 2008 and 2009.499 The current wording of ELV Annex II Exemption 1(a) is “Steel for machining purposes and batch hot dip galvanised steel components containing up to 0,35 % lead by weight”.

493 Dunkermotoren GmbH (2014), Dunkermotoren GmbH (2014), Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 15.12.2014, English version available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_a_/DUnkermotore n/Ex_6a_Dunkermotoren_150806_Ausnahmeantrag_Stahl_englisch.pdf 494 Sensata Technologies (2015a), Sensata Technologies Holland B.V. (2015a), Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 15.01.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_a_/Sensata_Techn ologies/6a_6b_6c_RoHS-Exemptions_Application-Format_Ex_6a_b_c_Pb_in_St_Al_Cu.pdf 495 Sensata Technologies (2015b), Sensata Technologies Holland B.V. (2015b), Answers to Clarification Questions, submitted 20.08.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Sensata/Ex_6a6 b6c_Sensata_Questions_response_20150820.pdf 496 Op. cit. Sensata Technologies (2015a) 497 The wording of exemption 6 was as follows: “Lead as an alloying element in steel containing up to 0,35% lead by weight, aluminium containing up to 0,4% lead by weight and as a copper alloy containing up to 4% lead by weight” 498 Op. cit. Gensch et al. (2009) 499 Zangl et al. (2010), Stéphanie Zangl et al., Oeko-Institut; Otmar Deubzer, Fraunhofer IZM (2010), Adaptation to scientific and technical progress of Annex II to Directive 2000/53/EC (ELV) and of the Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC (RoHS), final report; 28 July 2010; http://elv.exemptions.oeko.info/ fileadmin/user_upload/Final_Report/Corr_Final_report_ELV_RoHS_28_ 07_2010.pdf

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 287

18.1.1 Amount of Lead Used under the Exemption Steel for machining purposes In their renewal request, EUROFER and EGGA500 estimate the amount of substance entering the EU market annually through applications for which the exemption is requested as follows: “Machining steels – in 2013 the import of steel products for machining purposes amounted to approximately 73,000 tons. Assuming that the lead content in steel for machining purposes is between 0,2 and 0,35%, this means that the lead annually entering in the EU market through the import of free cutting steels can vary between 146 to 255 tons. However, note that these figures do not correspond solely to steel intended for EEE (which was not possible to estimate) and that also contains the volumes of steel intended for automotive.” During a 2nd round of clarification questions, EUROFER was asked to specify the production volume of leaded steel in the EU and to estimate the share of the total amount of leaded steel in the EU used for EEE by indicating at least a range of the amount of leaded steel in the EU used for EEE.501 However, EUROFER502 did not provide any further information. The following estimations have been made during the last revision of the exemption:503 “The main production countries of leaded steels are UK, Germany, France and Spain. The total production volume of leaded steel in the EU is estimated to be 1,3 Mt per year. It is, however, not possible to accurately say how much of this material is used for applications covered by RoHS due to the length of supply chains and sales to stock-holders and intermediate processors selling steels to different applications. Within EEE, leaded steels are mainly used in larger equipment with smaller volumes. Therefore, yearly quantities are expected to be some tons at maximum.” As for the other applicants of renewal requests, Dunkermotoren does not provide information on the amount of lead in the production of the engine and transmission parts (gear parts), whereas Sensata504 estimates the amount of lead in the predefined components supplied to Europe to be less than 1kg.

500 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 501 In analogy to the REACH registration, the following tonnage ranges were proposed: < 100 tonnes per annum (tpa); 100 - 1.000 tpa; 1.000 - 10.000 tpa; 10.000 - 100.000 tpa; 100.000 - 1.000.000 tpa. 502 EUROFER (2016), European Steel Association (EUROFER) (2016), Answers to 2nd Clarification Questions, submitted 15.01.2016. 503 Op. cit. Gensch et al. (2009) 504 Op. cit. Sensata Technologies (2015a)

288

Galvanized steel EUROFER and EGGA505 estimate the amount of lead intentionally added “for applications in the scope of WEEE/ROHS” to be less than 1 tonne per year. They further state not to be able to estimate the amount of unintentional lead in the recycled zinc (see Section 18.3.2. for further details).

18.2 Description of Requested Exemption Steel for machining purposes According to EUROFER and EGGA,506 lead is added as an alloying element in steel in order to enhance machinability “if a variety of machining operations is required or if deep drilling of material is required”. EUROFER and EGGA further explain that lead acts as a lubricant and thereby provides “a reduced cutting force when machining steel, appropriate chip formation (length and force), facilitation of a smooth surface finish, facilitation of a good dimensional achievement under commercial production conditions or reduced “tool wear” during the machining operation” are of relevance. EUROFER and EGGA are not able to provide an exhaustive list of EEE applications or of application sub-groups for which such steel is applied. EUROFER and EGGA507 explain that the problem is a result of the long and complex supply chain “with many different actors, including stockists and intermediate processors. The producer of the free cutting steel itself rarely has detailed, if any, contact with the final EEE producer (or even the producer of the components that become part of EEE).”

505 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 506 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 507 EUROFER and EGGA (2015b), European Steel Association (EUROFER) and European General Galvanizers Association (EGGA) (2015b), Answers to Clarification Questions, revised version, submitted 15.09.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_a_/Eurofer/Ex_6a_ Eurofer_1st_round_of_Clarification-Questions_final-20150803_DRAFT_REPLY_- _EGGA_EUROFER_MCchanges15-9-15_revised.pdf A number of organizations supported this compilation of information: European General Galvanizers Association (EGGA); European Steel Association (EUROFER); European Partnership for Energy and the Environment (EPEE); Digital Europe; Information Technology Industry Council (ITI); European Garden Machinery Industry Federation (EGMF); European Passive Components Industry Association (EPCIA); European Semiconductor Industry Association (ESIA); Japan Business Council in Europe (JBCE); Japan Business Machine and Information System Industries Association (JBMIA); Japan Electronics and Information Technology Industries Association (JEITA); Japan Electrical Manufacturers´ Association (JEMA); Knowles UK Ltd.; LIGHTINGEUROPE; WirtschaftsVereinigung Metalle (WVM); German Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers´ Association (ZVEI); European Coordination Committee of the Radiological, Electromedical and Healthcare IT Industry (COCIR); American Chamber of Commerce to the EU (AmCham EU); European Committee of Domestic equipment Manufacturers (CECED).

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 289

Instead, EUROFER and EGGA508 provide the following list of typical components: fuel injector systems, hydraulic clips, keys, motor shafts, fasteners, printer shafts, and a wide range of office equipment parts – for example lap top screen screws. Galvanized steel Lead is present in the zinc coating of batch hot dip galvanised steels, but does not provide a function in the coated product.509 According to the EUROFER and EGGA510, lead in galvanised steel is mostly unintentionally present as an impurity related to the use of recycled zinc. EGGA511 explains that the unintentional lead content arises from the remelting of zinc metal from the crude galvanizers ashes (arising from oxidation of the zinc bath surface) and secondly from the recovery and recycling of scrap metallic zinc from roofing/gutters (often of 50 – 120 year vintage) made from former standard zinc grades with lead impurities512 that additionally contain lead-based solders that were used to join roofing sheets and gutters. EUROFER and EGGA513 state that lead is intentionally added in the galvanizing bath to adjust the viscosity and reach optimal drainage of excess zinc “in a small number of plants”. According of EUROFER and EGGA,514 the intentional addition of lead to the galvanizing bath is rapidly declining due to technical innovation. According to EUROFER and EGGA515, batch galvanized steel is used in components like fasteners, brackets, fixings “for a range of EEE items such as lighting units that require high levels of durability in outdoor or aggressive environments” as well as in e.g. transformer housings and heat exchangers.

18.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption Steel for machining purposes EUROFER and EGGA516 argue that lead provides an excellent machinability in a variety of machining processes such as e.g. turning, drilling, tapping, parting, grooving which is favourable especially in cases where the manufacturing of an EEE component requires a combination of different machining operations. EUROFER and EGGA further argue not to be able to provide an exhaustive list of functionalities respective of performance aspects of lead because “‘machinability’ cannot be restricted to a property of the machined material. It is not a single material

508 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015b) 509 Op. cit. Gensch et al. (2009) 510 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 511 Op. cit. EGGA (2016) 512 So-called ‘Good Ordinary Brand’ / ‘Prime Western’ zinc. 513 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 514 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 515 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015b) 516 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2016a)

290

property like tensile strength, ductility or electrical conductivity, which we can measure and have one value to characterize the material.” Instead machinability depends also on the “material of the tool, the geometry of the tool, the machining operation itself (turning, drilling…), the machine type (autolathes, machines for specific applications, single spindle, multispindle…), the machining parameters, the cooling conditions. All these parameters have an influence on tool life, chip form, process forces and surface quality. This means it is a sum of chemical, mechanical and tribological properties which cannot be examined with a simple statistical correlation. The combination of various machining operations with a set of different tools in one machine is an additional difficulty. In this case one single operation can be the limiting factor for the whole machining process of a special part.” The other applicants Dunkermotoren and Sensata provide the following justifications: · Dunkermotoren517 argues with increased costs because the use of alternative material would increase the production time and shorten tool life. · Sensata518 who uses latching components within the tripping and actuation mechanism made from leaded steel argues that “the Sensata supply chain for lead-containing steel alloys comprises companies whose expertise is in stamping and screw-machining. Neither Sensata nor the Sensata supply chain has the expertise or resources to develop alternatives to lead- containing steel alloys. For this reason the focus of the efforts made by Sensata has been on existing materials, none of which has proven to be a suitable replacement.” Galvanized steel EGGA519 explains that lead influences certain aspects of the process such as fluidity, drainage and ease of removal of dross for recycling. EUROFER and EGGA520 cannot give an estimation on the share of hot dip galvanization that still needs the intentional addition of lead. EGGA521 explains that “there are no other limitations on the use of lead in the galvanizing process and the proportion of components coated that are within the scope of the WEEE directive is very small in volume terms. Decisions on the intentional use of lead or the use of recycled zinc would not be solely influenced by the processing of EEE-related components.” EGGA further states that EEE normally represents a very small proportion of a plant’s throughput.

517 Op. cit. Dunkermotoren (2015) 518 Op. cit. Sensata Technologies (2015b) 519 Op. cit. EGGA (2016) 520 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015b) 521 Op. cit. EGGA (2016)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 291

18.3.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances Steel for machining purposes In their application, EUROFER and EGGA522 confirm that the steel mills are continuously researching, searching for new alternatives in order to find efficient substitutes to avoid the use of lead in steel. However they state that “no alternatives have been identified that can effectively replace lead as a machinability enhancer in steel in all respects. Lead- free alternatives may show acceptable results in single machinability tests, but the overall performance of the lead-free steels is worse than that of leaded steel. The lack of hot workability of the lead-free alternatives is also an important obstacle towards the substitution“.523 EUROFER and EGGA524 mention the following possible alternatives that each shows certain disadvantages according to EUROFER and EGGA: · Lead-free alternatives from Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Corporation are used for the manufacture of printer rails. EUROFER and EGGA525 explain that printer rails are surface quality critical and are manufactured using very low feed rates. Initial problems related to built-up edge formation526 on the cutting tool have been solved by new developments of the steel that contains finer inclusions of Manganese(II)sulfide (MnS).527 EUROFER and EGGA528 are not aware of a wider use then printer rails. · A lead-free development of the steel grade C45 by Toyota is mentioned; however, EUROFER and EGGA529 explain that a research project in 2005530 tested deep hole drilling applications and complex machine features where this lead- free development failed; EUROFER and EGGA conclude that it would therefore not be applicable for EEE.

522 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 523 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 524 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015b) 525 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015b) 526 The so called “built-up edge” is a formation of metal deposits sticking to the tool close to the cutting edge. It can be observed usually at low cutting speeds, which causes chips to be torn away rather than cleanly cut, resulting in rough part surface, and it may damage the tool. Low cutting speed favour the formation of built-up edge as well as other cutting parameters such as e.g. large depth of cut. See e.g. https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_does_the_built-up_edge_lead_to_surface_damage. 527 Hashimura M. et al (2007), Hashimura M., Miyanishi, K., Mizuno, A. (2007), Development of Low- Carbon Lead-Free Free-Cutting Steel Friendly to Environment, Nippon Steel Technical Report, No. 96, 2007. http://www.nssmc.com/en/tech/report/nsc/pdf/n9608.pdf 528 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015b) 529 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015b) 530 P.E. Reynolds et al. (2005), Technically and commercially viable alternatives to lead as machinability enhancers in steel used for automotive component manufacture, Report EUR 21912, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2005.

292

· There is also lead-free steel with a higher quantity of sulphur in free cutting steels, so called resulfurized steel grades. According to EUROFER and EGGA,531 they showed “disappointing” results compared to leaded steel in deep drilling operations or high speed machining, due to decreased machining speed, increased tooling wear and an increased fragility and reduction in hot workability which results in yield losses. EUROFER and EGGA532 do not provide further details on this statement. · As for the alternatives with bismuth, increased sulphur (with and without tellurium), tin (with low and high copper), phosphorus and calcium, EUROFER and EGGA533 refer to results that already have been presented in the frame of the ELV Directive review of exemptions in 2008 and that are included in the corresponding report of Oeko-Institut.534 In brief, “Although the machining properties of bismuth-treated steels approach those of lead-treated steels for certain machining operations, in the majority of machining operations lead remains the most effective machinability additive through its wide range of machining characteristics. It was further concluded in the report that calcium can substitute lead in C45 steels for use at higher cutting speeds. However, calcium treated steels require higher cutting forces, have poorer chip form and have their best performance limited to a narrower range of machining speeds in comparison with the leaded product. The more limited benefits of calcium treated grades may not be able to match the benefits of leaded grades in many instances since it is very likely that a large variety of machining operations are required for many engineering components. Steels containing tin generally did not show good performance in the machinability tests and thus, was not considered as a suitable replacement for lead in steel.” EUROFER and EGGA535 also state that the lead-free alternatives that contain bismuth or tellurium show a decreased hot workability in the temperature range normally used for hot rolling of steel. According to EUROFER and EGGA,536 bismuth containing steel needs to be rolled at very high temperatures and often rolled material shows surface cracks like those shown in the following figures. EUROFER and EGGA537 explain that tellurium causes similar cracks.

531 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 532 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 533 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 534 Op. cit. Zangl et al. (2010) 535 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2016a) 536 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2016a) 537 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2016a)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 293

Figure 18 -1: Cracks in bismuth containing steel wire rods after rolling

Source: EUROFER (2016a)

As for bismuth containing steel, the following new efforts are reported:538 “Since 2010, this steel producer has carried out seven interconnected full scale trials related to the use of bismuth as an alternative to lead. During the last trial in 2012, a new 10MnSBi grade of steel (1215Bi) was manufactured under normal production conditions and supplied to customers. […] The results from this and previous trials have indicated that bismuth steels are much more prone to surface break-up than normal leaded steels and the associated yield losses are not sustainable for routine production. […] Overall the results of these trials confirm the conclusions from the collaborative ECSC project where bismuth was shown to be a potential alternative to lead for the purposes of enhancing machinability but that low hot ductility and limited availability (of Bi) could prevent the material being a feasible commercial product.” Generally, EUROFER and EGGA539 raise concerns over the availability of bismuth and a higher price because bismuth production is most often a by-product of lead or tungsten production. Galvanized steel The research that EUROFER and EGGA mention for galvanizing processes do not deal with substitution of lead as it is mostly inadvertently present due to recycling of zinc scrap and galvanizers’ ashes because the use of lead within the process have largely (but not completely) been replaced by other techniques, according to EUROFER and EGGA.540 EGGA541 explains that the general research approach targets to reach thinner coatings regardless of steel type (“more zinc-efficient coatings”) and coatings of more consistent

538 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015b) 539 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015b) 540 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 541 Op. cit. EGGA (2016)

294

appearance and surface finish. EGGA argues that this goes hand in hand with a general “desire to reduce the presence of hazardous substances, including lead. Intentional use of lead is now limited to a narrow, but important, set of processes and products.” The problem that these processes cannot be separately dealt with is explored in Section 18.5.6.

18.3.2 Possibilities for Reducing RoHS Substances Steel for machining purposes EUROFER and EGGA542 report a recent collaborative project between Saarstahl and Tata Steel on the question whether the 0.35% threshold of lead in steel can be reduced. According to EUROFER and EGGA,543 Tata Steel and Saarstahl produced several casts of low carbon free cutting steels with Pb contents from 0.11% up to 0.35%. The machinability of the steel with different lead content was tested by producing a component on a single spindle automatic lathe using high speed steel tools under neat oil coolant and determining the maximum production rate than can be achieved. The tests showed “progressive deterioration in machinability” due to decreased tool life (see Figure 18-2) and higher cutting forces (see Figure 18-3), which result in either increased usage of cutting tools or longer machining times.

Figure 18 -2: Tool wear by free cutting steels with different Pb content

Source: EUROFER and EGGA (2015b)

542 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015b) 543 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015b)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 295

Figure 18 -3: Cutting forces (CF) and feed forces (FF) of free cutting steels with different Pb content in dry cutting conditions (left: 100 m/min, right: 130 m/min)

Source: EUROFER and EGGA (2015b)

Galvanized steel EUROFER and EGGA544 expect the lead content within recycled zinc arising from scrap roofing/gutters to decrease in the long term “(> ~50 years due to the very long product life)”, as a result of “new solders” being used. Also, customer-driven requirements for lower lead levels in markets outside EEE/ELV and the higher price of lead than zinc (affecting intentional use) might also result in lower lead levels in time. EGGA545 states “There may be a downward trend in lead content from sources from galvanizers’ ashes associated with a general trend to avoid the intentional use of lead additions to the galvanizing bath. Recyclers estimate that will be >50 years before the lead content of recycled zinc from scrap metallic zinc from roofing/gutters shows any significant decline.”

18.3.3 Environmental Arguments Steel for machining purposes EUROFER and EGGA546 specify processes where the scrap coming from machining of free cutting steel is recycled and the lead recovered by off gas treatment to 90%. EUROFER and EGGA do not provide information on the steel recycling circuit. Besides this, EUROFER and EGGA raise the following environmental arguments, however without providing further evidence in both cases: · EUROFER and EGGA547 mention as “wider environmental implications of material choice” that “the lower energy consumption of machining leaded

544 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015b) 545 Op. cit. EGGA (2016) 546 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 547 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a)

296

steels means that there is a potential benefit of reduced electricity consumption and CO2 emissions in fabrication”: According to EUROFER and EGGA,548 “the addition of lead into low carbon free cutting steels enhances machinability and can increase the production rate of a component by up to 40% depending upon part and machining process design, and a potential reduction in energy usage of approximately 27% when machining parts using the leaded steel are compared to the non-leaded steel.” · As for bismuth containing steel, EUROFER549 claims that “the high rolling temperatures and a second or even third rolling process will cause additional energy consumption.” Galvanized steel For galvanized steel, EUROFER and EGGA550 bring forward the argument in favour of using scrap zinc for galvanizing purposes: “A life-cycle comparison of the embodied energy of (i) remelt secondary zinc and (ii) primary zinc has been published in ‘Sachbilanz Zink’, Prof. J. Krüger, Institut für Metallhüttenkunde und Elektrometallurgie der RWTH Aachen (ISBN 3-89653-939- 6, 2001). This publication reports that: “The energy required for the extraction of zinc from scrap to obtain alloys capable of further use demands a primary energy input of only approximately 2.5 GJ/t. During the extraction of zinc from ores, the primary energy requirement for mining and ore dressing is around 5-9 GJ/t metal content in the concentrate. Concentrate processing to obtain a pure metal however calls for a primary energy input of 46-48 GJ/t zinc. Based on this information, the use of remelt secondary zinc reduces the embodied energy of the zinc used in batch galvanizing by over 20 times.””

18.3.4 Socio-economic Impact of Substitution No information has been submitted on socio-economic effects of substitution by EUROFER and EGGA. As for general economic impacts, EUROFER and EGGA mention the following, but without providing further evidence to substantiate or quantify their claims: EUROFER and EGGA argue that an increasing demand for bismuth might result in a strong rise in the bismuth price and consequently an increase in production costs.551

548 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 549 Op. cit. EUROFER (2016a) 550 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 551 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015b)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 297

18.3.5 Road Map to Substitution Steel for machining purposes EUROFER and EGGA552 do not provide a road map for substitution because substitutes in machining steel would need to first show the same level of hot workability as lead- containing free cutting steel, which has not occurred so far with the identified alternative materials. Besides, EUROFER553 explains that the huge diversity of applications in (often small) different machining companies and the diversity of parameters in the system “machining” makes it very difficult to provide a timeframe for the substitution. Galvanized steel EUROFER and EGGA554 do not provide a road map because the inadvertent presence of Pb in the recycling chain does not demand substitution and the intentional addition of lead cannot be separated for the purpose of the production of EEE, which is explained to account for only a small portion of production (see Section 18.5.6).

18.4 Stakeholder Contributions Six contributions to Exemption 6a have been submitted during the stakeholder consultation. The contributions are presented in order of submission and shortly summarized: · The Robert Bosch GmbH555 generally supports the applicants without providing further information. · JBCE556 – Japan Business Council in Europe in a.i.b.l. states that they understand that EEE of Category 8 and 9 are out of scope of this review. The JBCE understands that “the exemption 6(a) in annex III can be applied to category 8&9 products for seven years from identified date when entry into force for each products, at the earliest July 2021.” · CETEHOR, the technical department of the Comite Franceclat (French Watch, Clock, Jewellery, Silverware & Tableware Centre)557 generally states the better

552 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 553 Op. cit. EUROFER (2016) 554 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 555 Robert Bosch GmbH (2015), Contribution by Robert Bosch GmbH, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_a_/Bosch- Stakeholder-contribution-Exemption-request-6a.pdf 556 JBCE (2015), Contribution by JBCE – Japan Business Council in Europe in a.i.b.l, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/ Exemption_6_a_/Comment_on_public_cousulation_of_Exemption_request_2015-2_6_a__.pdf 557 CETEHOR (2015), Contribution by Comite Franceclat (French Watch, Clock, Jewellery, Silverware & Tableware Centre), CETEHOR, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_a_/Ex_6_a_Comite _Franceclat_Cetehor_20151012.pdf

298

machinability of leaded steel with a lead content of 0.2%; a greater weal tool with unleaded steel would hinder a profitable manufacturing “in a severe context of competition with low-cost labour countries” and the longer machining cycles would increase energy consumption. CETEHOR claims to use a leaded steel with a lead content of 0.2%; therefore “the regulatory limit could be reduced to 0.3% to allow alloy suppliers to guarantee conformity to the regulatory value.” CETEHOR558 estimates a quantity of lead of 1 kg per year based on the average amount of 1 g of machining steel per watch movement, a maximum lead content of this steel of 0.2% and the annual French production of quartz watches of 0.5 million. · KEMI Kemikalieinspektionen, the Swedish Chemicals Agency559, recommends to “split into a number of more specific exemptions, related to applications where it has been verified that feasible alternatives are not currently available” and argues that the “broad and unspecific wording does not conform with the requirements in the updated RoHS Directive 2011/65/EU any longer”. KEMI lists the specific applications provided by the applicants: Electric drives, engines and transmission parts (gear parts), latching components within the tripping and actuation mechanism, fuel injection systems, hydraulic clips, keys, motor shafts, printer shafts, lap top screen screws and the following articles manufactured in batch galvanised processes fasteners and support brackets/fixings in lighting units that require high levels of durability in outdoor or aggressive environment, transformer housings and heat exchangers. · PennEngineering,560 a designer and manufacturer of specialty fasteners,561 objects the renewal request because they have substituted lead-free cutting steel with “traditional grades of low carbon, rephosphorized, resulfurized, free machining steels” by applying “changes to tool materials and other subtle proprietary changes to minimize the loss of efficiency”. PennEngineering requests a transition period of more than 18 months because of the “significant inventory of steel fasteners with up to 0.35 % lead content in the distribution channels” and because “customers will stop accepting non-compliant product many months before it becomes non-compliant”. PennEngineering states that they currently use 907 t (“2,000,000 lb”) of leaded steel per annum globally; the amount of the contained lead is calculated at 2.3

558 Op. cit. CETEHOR (2015) 559 KEMI (2015), Contribution by KEMI Kemikalieinspektionen, Swedish Chemicals Agency, submitted 19.10.2015 , available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_a_/Ex_6a_KEMI_A nswer_to_SC_RoHS_20151016_Lead_in_Steel.pdf 560 PennEngineering (2015), Contribution by PennEngineering, submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_a_/Ex_6a_PennEng ineering_Consultation_Questionnaire_PE_AS_20151016.pdf 561 For fasteners used in EEE, see at http://www.pemnet.com/fastening_products/pdf/kdata.pdf

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 299

tpa (“5,000 lb”). PennEngineering estimated that approximately 25% of their sales of leaded products go towards EEE in the EU. · The Test & Measurement Coalition562 (TMC) submitted a general contribution on Category 9 Industrial monitoring and control instruments similar in its nature to that of JBCE.

18.5 Critical Review

18.5.1 REACH Compliance – Relation to the REACH Regulation Appendix A.1.0 of this report lists Entry 30 in Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation, stipulating that lead and its compounds shall not be placed on the market, or used, as substances, constituents of other substances, or in mixtures for supply to the general public. A prerequisite to granting the requested exemption would therefore be to establish whether the intended use of lead in this exemption request might weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by the REACH regulation. In the consultants’ understanding, the restriction for substances under Entry 30 of Annex XVII does not apply to the use of lead in this application as lead is used as an alloying element. In the consultants’ point of view it is not a supply of lead as a substance, mixture or constituent of other mixtures to the general public. Pb is part of an article and as such, Entry 30 of Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation would not apply. Appendix A.1.0 of this report lists Entry 63 in Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation, stipulating that lead and its compounds shall not be placed on the market or used in articles supplied to the general public, if the concentration of lead (expressed as metal) in those articles or accessible parts thereof is equal to or greater than 0,05 % by weight, and those articles or accessible parts thereof may, during normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use, be placed in the mouth by children.563 Entry 63 however further specifies this restriction not to be applicable for articles within the scope of the RoHS Directive 2011/65/EU. No other entries, relevant for the use of lead in the requested exemption could be identified in Annex XIV and Annex XVII (status January 2016). Based on the current status of Annexes XIV and XVII of the REACH Regulation, the requested exemption would not weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by the REACH Regulation. An exemption could therefore be granted if other criteria of Art. 5(1)(a) apply.

562 Test & Measurement Coalition (2015), Contribution by Test & Measurement Coalition, submitted 19 October 2015, available under http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_1_a- e_/General_Contribution_Test___Measurement_Coalition_package_9_exemptions_20151016.pdf 563 Other restrictions of entry 63 cover e.g. jewellery and are thus not applicable here.

300

18.5.2 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution Steel for machining purposes The basic problem for assessing the scientific and technical practicability of substitution of leaded steel is the fact that the applicant EUROFER as an association of steel producers does not have information on the detailed machining procedures. Therefore, EUROFER was not able to provide an exhaustive list of applications nor to specify in which EEE applications available alternative material might be practicable and reliable. Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Corporation were contacted to gain more information on their lead-free steel development. Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Corporation564 state that they are supplying the material in the Asian market, however unfortunately not in Europe at this moment. They indicated that their lead-free steel is used for “printer shafts, pins and small parts for automobile and industrial machines”, which are produced by many different companies, and confirm that these components are also applicable in EEE. It has to be noted that printer shafts are among the typical components that require leaded steel according to EUROFER and EGGA.565 The following figure shows machine intensive application examples provided by NSSMC.566 Figure 18 -4: Application examples of the lead-free steel developed by NSSMC

Source: Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Corporation (NSSMC) (2016)

The lead-free steel by NSSMC567 is resulfurised free cutting steel; the hardness is stated to be almost equivalent to that of other low-carbon free cutting steels; it has a higher

564 NSSMC (2015), Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Corporation (2015), Information submitted by email, 07 December 2015. 565 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015b) 566 NSSMC (2016), Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Corporation (2016), Information submitted by email, 08 January 2016. 567 Op. cit. Hashimura M. et al (2007)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 301

sulphur content and contains MnS which is distributed in very fine particles through controlled manufacturing conditions. NSSMC568 indicated the following chemical composition of their lead-free cutting steel (Figure 18-5). Figure 18 -5: Chemical composition of the lead-free free cutting steel developed by NSSMC

Source: Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Corporation (NSSMC) (2016)

Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Corporation569 estimate that the application of their lead-free steel does not require large process changes but some modifications of the cutting conditions. NSSMC570 estimates that the adaptations could comprise changes in the material and/or design of cutting tool, cutting speed, feeding speed, depth of cut, oil etc. NSSMC further estimates that the application of their lead-free steel does not require large investment costs but is not able to determine the costs. NSSMC571 states that the cost of their lead-free steel approaches the same as leaded free cutting steel. The contribution by PennEngineering shows that plant-specific adaptations in the machining procedures makes it possible to use lead-free steel grades that are available on the market: PennEngineering572 is a designer and manufacturer of specialty fasteners.573 It has to be noted that fasteners are one of the typical components that according to the application of EUROFER and EGGA574 needs the use of leaded steel.

568 Op. cit. NSSMC (2016) 569 Op. cit. NSSMC (2016) 570 Op. cit. NSSMC (2016) 571 Op. cit. NSSMC (2016) 572 Op. cit. PennEngineering (2015a) 573 http://www.pemnet.com/comp_lit_files/, see bulletin K for fasteners used in EEE. 574 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015b)

302

PennEngineering575 states that they have started to test lead-free free cutting steel “over three years ago” (as of October 2015). For environmental and strategic reasons,576 PennEngineering focused on “traditional grades of low carbon, rephosphorised, resulfurised, free machining steels”, such as 1215, 11SMn30, and 11SMn37, that are commercially available in the small bar sizes PennEngineering uses.577 PennEngineering states that for most of our product, these grades can be run at the same surface footage and feed rates as 12L14 leaded steel with some reduction in efficiency: “In the majority of cases the decreased efficiency is from more frequent tool changes driven by faster deterioration of the surface finish. We are making changes to tool materials and other subtle proprietary changes to minimize the loss of efficiency.” PennEngineering578 explains that the machining is done on five and six spindle automatic screw machines that perform a variety of machining operations.579 PennEngineering states that they managed the increased cost of the machining operation down to the area of 10%. However, PennEngineering did not reveal details of the technical changes in order to protect the “significant investment in preparing for the eventual removal of RoHS Exemption 6a”. Besides the above mentioned examples of lead-free free cutting steel covering resulfurized (NSSMC) and rephosphorized and resulfurized (PennEngineering) steel grades, there are basically also lead-free alternatives available that contain bismuth or tellurium.580 EUROFER and EGGA581 state that “bismuth alloyed low carbon free cutting steels have been supplied for certain applications.” However, EUROFER and EGGA do not further specify these applications with “very specific machining conditions” but rather claim that this alternative is not practicable due to the above mentioned difficulties in hot workability. It might be that the difficulties in how workability cause negative environmental impacts by increased energy costs in the steel production; however in the absence of detailed comparisons, the consultants cannot conclude on this statement.

575 Op. cit. PennEngineering (2015a) 576 “We are well aware that other elements such as bismuth, selenium, tellurium, tin and calcium have been used to replace lead. Off these, bismuth, selenium and tellurium are the most commercially viable. Because environmental legislation is constantly changing, and because there are some environmental concerns with selenium and tellurium, we stayed away from steels with these two elements out of concern about future restrictions. We are still open to bismuth steels, but there are concerns about price and availability of bismuth.” 577 According to PennEngineering (2015b), “round bar in the 5/32 inch to 5/8 inch range and hex bar in the 3/16 inch to 5/16 inch range”. 578 Op. cit. PennEngineering (2015b) 579 Most commonly performed machining operations are rough forming, finish forming, turning, shaving, knurling, facing, cut off, drilling, form tapping, back working (primarily countersinking). Other machining operations also performed include reaming, slotting, broaching and external threading (primarily rolling with some cutting). 580 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 581 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015b) and (2016b)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 303

It is apparent from the paragraphs above that there are alternatives on the market that are scientifically and technically practicable for at least some applications: This is the case for resulfurised and rephosphorised and resulfurised steel grades; for bismuth or tellurium containing steel, the information is not conclusive. These single cases are not reflected by EUROFER and EGGA as it seems that they rather search for an all-round alternative: “No alternatives have been identified that can effectively replace lead as a machinability enhancer in steel in all respects. Lead-free alternatives may show acceptable results in single machinability tests, but the overall performance of the lead-free steels is worse than that of leaded steel.” Though the consultants understand this statement from a perspective of the steel producer, the example of PennEngineering shows that substitution efforts are successful when undertaken in the specific manufacturing case with different alternatives available. The consultants understand that there might be components that require a combination of different machining operations and therefore that the machinability over a broad range of cutting parameters has to be guaranteed, which might only be provided by leaded steel. However these cases have to be specified in the future. If steel manufacturers or OEMs lack sufficient information to specify these aspects, they should embark on dialogue and joint investigation with the component manufacturers who are expected to be aware of modifications needed to allow workability with lead-free alloys. This need of a different approach is supported by the statement of EUROFER and EGGA582 already mentioned above that the supply chain is complex and that the steel producer has limited, if any, contact to the final OEM producer. EUROFER583 states that “the steel producer has a direct contact usually only to the bright drawer. In some special cases there are contacts also with the final producer (e.g. Bosch) for the discussion of special properties. But this is not the case for the commodity products.” The supply chain of free cutting is illustrated in the following figure.

582 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015b) 583 Op. cit. EUROFER (2016b)

304

Figure 18 -6: Supply chain of free cutting steel

Source: EUROFER (2016b)

To conclude, the consultants understand from the information provided by EUROFER and EGGA that the steel producers are not able to provide the detailed information on the specific applications of leaded steel in the EEE sector that would be needed to assess the technical and scientific practicability of available substitutes. NSSMC confirm this estimation by stating that “NSSMC do not know the detailed machining procedure”. The supply chain provided by EUROFER in the figure above points out that the machining companies might be the right stakeholders for providing more precise information. It is understood from the example of PennEngineering that alternative materials might need adaptations in the machining procedures, which every EEE component manufacturer has to carry out for his specific machining operations; however, substitution at least for some applications is understood to be possible. Galvanized steel As the intentional addition of lead in the galvanizing process cannot be separated from the unintentional presence due to the use of zinc scrap and galvanizers’ ashes, substitution of lead is not further discussed. For further information, please see section 18.5.6.

18.5.3 Possibilities for Reducing RoHS Substances Steel for machining purposes EUROFER and EGGA reported tests conducted by Tata Steel and Saarstahl according to which a reduction of lead in steel for machining purposes results in a decrease of production rate which subsequently caused an increased usage of cutting tools and/or longer machining times. The following figure shows this overall result according to EUROFER and EGGA. It is however unclear if attempts were made by Tata Steel and

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 305

Saarstahl to adjust the processing to accommodate the decreasing lead content materials tested. This makes it difficult to assess the overall conclusion of EUROFER and EGGA on the “progressive deterioration in machinability”: Are longer machining times acceptable in some applications? Which possibilities can be explored to minimize the loss of efficiency as in the case of PennEngineering?

Figure 18 -7: Effect of Pb reduction in steel alloy on production rate in a component production test

Source: EUROFER & EGGA (2015b)

The consultants can follow that steel with a lower lead content may suffer technical drawbacks for e.g. machining in automated series production. There might, however, be applications where a reduction of lead does not pose a significant problem as the contribution of CETEHOR shows, where generally leaded steel with a lead content of 0.2% is used. It might be that the required level of performance cannot be generally defined but depends on the machining processes. However, where substitution with lead-free alloys is not possible, the second approach in the future strategy of companies could be to apply lower leaded steel in their applications where a complete phase-out is not practical. Galvanized steel The consultants’ understand the lead in the batch hot dip galvanization is expected to slightly decrease in the future due to different reasons such as reduction of intentional addition of lead, decrease of lead in the galvanizers’ ashes together with decrease in the very long term (50 years and more) of lead in recycled zinc scrap.

306

18.5.4 Environmental Arguments Steel for machining purposes EUROFER and EGGA raise general environmental arguments on higher energy use of alternative material due to lower production rate in the components manufacturing584 or higher temperature needed in the steel production.585 Though those differences may be of relevance, available information does not allow a comprehensive comparison in this respect. Especially for comparison of the energy use in the component manufacturing, it is expected that this could be case specific and dependent on adaptations in the machining conditions, which helps to reduce the efficiency loss shown in the case of PennEngineering. However, it might be that the energy savings could support the exemption for specific applications if it is comprehensively documented. Galvanized steel It is understood that the introduction of lead is unintentional and merely a result of lead being present in the secondary zinc. From an environmental perspective, the consultants can follow that the recycling of zinc scrap and its reuse is a positive practice, as it enables a reuse of ressources and as stated by EUROFER and EGGA586 this is understood to be more energy efficient than the use of primary zinc: “the use of remelt secondary zinc reduces the embodied energy of the zinc used in batch galvanizing by over 20 times”587 (see section 18.3.3).

18.5.5 Stakeholder Contributions Six contributions were submitted to the stakeholder consultation. The contributions of KEMI,588 CETEHOR589 and PennEngineering590 are discussed in the sections above as well as below. Bosch591 did not provide any evidence to its claims; therefore the contribution was not further considered. The contributions submitted by TMC592 and JBCE593 raise a legal question as to the availability of the current exemption to category 8 and 9 equipment. TMC and JBCE claim the availability of Annex III exemptions to category 8 and 9 for seven years starting in 22.7.2017. EUROFER and EGGA594state in this regard:

584 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 585 Op. cit. EUROFER (2016a) 586 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 587 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) 588 Op. cit. KEMI (2015) 589 Op. cit. CETEHOR (2015) 590 Op. cit. PennEngineering (2015a) 591 Op. cit. Bosch (2015) 592 Op. cit. TMC (2015) 593 Op. cit. JBCE (2015) 594 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 307

“We apply for renewal of this exemption for categories 1 to 7, 10 and 11 of Annex I for an additional validity period of 5 years. For these categories, the validity of this exemption may be required beyond this timeframe. Although applications in this exemption renewal request may be relevant to categories 8 & 9, this renewal request does not address these categories. Further, categories 8 & 9 have separate maximum validity periods and time limits for application for renewals.” Since lead as an alloying element in steel for machining purposes and in galvanised steel is understood to be relevant to all categories, it can be concluded that expiration dates should be specified for all categories.

18.5.6 The Scope of the Exemption The scope of the current exemption is viewed as very wide. As mentioned above, the contribution of the Swedish Chemicals Agency KEMI makes reference to Article 5(1)(a) that stipulates an inclusion of materials and components of EEE for specific applications in the lists in Annexes III and IV. The specifications of applications are so far missing for exemption 6a. KEMI therefore proposes to split into a number of more specific exemptions, related to applications where it has been verified that feasible alternatives are currently not available without specifying whether these are applications of lead in steel for machining purposes or of galvanizing processes. As the present exemption 6a covers these different uses of lead with different purposes and different entry pathways, possibilities to narrow down the scope differ and will be discussed separately for steel for machining purposes and galvanized steel below. Steel for machining purposes The scope of the current exemption is viewed as very wide. However, EUROFER and EGGA only provide a list of typical components and not an exhaustive list. Thus the consultants cannot conclude on specific applications to narrow the scope of the exemption. The consultants understand that there are alternatives on the market for at least some applications. However, it is not clear in what cases, or on what basis they cannot be used as substitutes for other applications, where, from the information provided by EUROFER and EGGA, leaded steel cannot be substituted. To clarify if they are not used at all or just not for the full range of applications, further information is needed. It can however be followed that the steel producer association is not able to provide such information. The consultants would expect that the scope could be narrowed based on application groups or based on critical properties and required performance in application groups. This could require a supply chain survey, in order to collect and compile relevant information and to allow conclusions as to relevant properties and performance levels. Time may be needed in order to initiate such a survey along the supply chain to gain this information and screen all relevant applications relevant to arrive at an exhaustive list (of applications or of properties). However, this effort is presumed to be feasible as well as important for communicating to the steel customers where additional effort is needed in the applications of substitutes in the future.

308

EUROFER595 claims that “conventional machinability testing (for example ISO standard for tool life testing) can only be made for a selected system. This explains why each research institute or machining company has its own trials for machinability assessment. And if one parameter is changed (in our case lead or no lead) it may be possible that the whole system consequently has to be adjusted. And this explains why such studies can be made for some special applications but not yet for the whole machining industry.” Therefore it might be that an exhaustive list of properties also specifying the required performance level and the relevant performance indicators that are relevant for such properties might not be practicable to refine the scope of the exemption. To support this understanding, however, the complexity of the situation at hand needs to be presented and substantiated. The wide scope currently addressed in the exemption is open to misuse in cases where substitution might be possible. Therefore the consultants conclude that although a comprehensive list of applications may be long for refining the scope of the exemption, this is however of importance for establishing the potential of a change in scope. The consultants consider this to be the first step to further narrow the scope of the exemption, which the industry must be induced to undertake. Galvanized steel EGGA596 argues that the proposed addition in the wording formulation provides a narrowed scope for galvanized steel as the batch hot dip galvanized steel makes up less than 1% of the total galvanized steel.597 It is however understood that this reduction in scope to batch hot dip galvanized steel has been introduced to the ELV in 2010. Therefore the consultants estimate that this narrowing under RoHS rather describes the current practice. A split of this part of the exemption for batch galvanized steel into an exemption that covers the unintentional presence of lead and applications where the addition of lead is needed does not seem to be practical against the background that the production of EEE components cannot be separated from the production of components for other product groups. EGGA598 argues that “no galvanizing plant is dedicated to EEE and EEE will normally represent a very small proportion of a plant’s throughput. To generate an exhaustive ‘positive list’ of such products would be complex and difficult given EGGA’s position in the supply chain; a galvanizing plant may operate with a lead level requiring

595 Op. cit. EUROFER (2016a) 596 Op. cit. EGGA (2016) 597 “Oeko report 07.0307/2008/517348/SER/G4 (21 June 2010) [Op. cit. Zangl et al. (2010)] on the adaptation to technical progress of ELV and ROHS directives estimated that 99% of the galvanized steel used in ELV applications was of the continuously galvanized type and that <1% was of the batch galvanized type. We estimate that a similar positon exists for EEE applications, which illustrates the significant narrowing of the exemption as a result of the efforts of zinc suppliers and steel industry and places a suitable to context to the current exemption request regarding batch galvanized steel.” 598 Op. cit. EGGA (2016)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 309

exemption due to requirements of a product or processing characteristic that relates to ‘non EEE’ products/customers.” Generally, EGGA stated that there is much pressure from the customer’s side to remove lead so that the intentional addition would phase out with time, irrespective of the fact that other product groups besides EEE and automotive components do not have the same lead restrictions.

18.5.7 Exemption Wording Formulation The present Exemption 6a covers completely different uses of lead in steel with different purposes that could also be specified with different thresholds. A split of the exemption in the opinion of the consultants is possible. The first part of the exemption should cover the use of lead as an alloying element in steel. For this part, the consultants agree with KEMI that there is a need to narrow the scope of the exemption. However, the consultants cannot conclude a list of exhaustive applications of lead in steel on the basis of the available information. The consultants agree that such an exhaustive inventory is needed in the future in order to further specify possibilities to narrow down the exemption to specific applications. Further steps that the consultants deem necessary for a future review are explored in Section 18.5.8. Concerning batch hot dip galvanized steel, EGGA599 agreed to lower the threshold down to 0.2% provided that the wording formulation makes it clear that this threshold is calculated for the entire steel item.600 This reduced threshold of 0.2% has been proposed based on consultations across the industry according to EGGA.601 EUROFER and EGGA explain that “Pb levels range from <0.03% up to 0.8% Pb in the coating if this is considered the ‘homogeneous material’. Steel items that have been batch hot dip galvanized would therefore readily comply with the upper exemption limit of 0.35% Pb previously established for machining steels”.602 It is thus concluded that specifying a threshold for the presence of lead would depend on whether this threshold would relate only to the coating or to the complete steel part. The current wording of ELV Annex II Exemption 1(a) is “Steel for machining purposes and batch hot dip galvanised steel components containing up to 0,35 % lead by weight”. Thus, should it be decided to renew the exemption in relation to the amount of lead in

599 EGGA (2015), European General Galvanizers Association (EGGA) (2015), Answers to 2nd Clarification Questions, submitted 14.12.2015. 600 EUROFER and EGGA (2015a) also state in this regard: “Lead has a low solubility in the zinc-iron alloys that are formed during the galvanizing reaction. Hence, the quantity of lead present in the coating is normally significantly lower than the lead present in the process bath – typically half as much. For a given bath composition, the variations of lead concentrations in the coating mainly depend on the steel type (reactivity with molten zinc).” 601 Op. cit. EGGA (2016) 602 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a)

310

the entirety of the galvanised part, reference to “batch hot dip galvanised steel components” should be made. In this case the threshold could be lowered to 0.2%. Otherwise, the formulation should refer to the presence of lead in the coating of components, whereas the threshold may need to be adjusted to accommodate the higher levels of lead (i.e., up to 0.8%). EUROFER and EGGA603 explain that the batch hot dip galvanizing process allows the complete coverage of manufactured steel components with a metallurgically-bonded metallic coating that is formed through diffusion of iron and zinc, giving no clear delineation between coating and steel substrate. It is thus not clear if reference to the coating would be feasible in terms of market surveillance. As further decrease in the lead content would only be expected in the long term due to the unintentional presence of lead in zinc scrap or irrespective of the requirement under RoHS, the consultants propose the exemption to be granted for the longest review period which is possible under RoHS.

18.5.8 Conclusions Article 5(1)(a) provides that an exemption can be justified if at least one of the following criteria is fulfilled: · their elimination or substitution via design changes or materials and components which do not require any of the materials or substances listed in Annex II is scientifically or technically impracticable; · the reliability of substitutes is not ensured; · the total negative environmental, health and consumer safety impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the total environmental, health and consumer safety benefits thereof. Overall, it seems important to differentiate in the future between the different uses in steel where lead provides necessary properties in steel alloy and is intentionally added and between galvanizing processes where lead is mostly unintentionally present. As for lead in steel for machining purposes · Substitution with bismuth containing steel might not be reliable and might cause negative environmental impacts. For the latter, not enough data is available to comprehensively conclude on this. · Substitution via steel that does not contain lead is scientifically or technically practicable at least for some applications as shown by examples of PennEngineering with lead-free rephosphorised and resulfurised steel used for the production of specialty fasteners and of NSSMC with resulfurised steel used for the production of printer rails and printer shafts.

603 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 311

· The remaining applications have to be specified by performing and integrated survey of the supply chain in order to narrow the scope of the exemption to a comprehensive list of applications. This would need the engagement of EEE component manufacturers. As EUROFER and EGGA clarify the complexity of the supply chain, the consultants can follow that this would be time consuming. However, the consultants think that the current scope is not justified and recommend a short termed exemption to allow performing such a survey. · The set-up of a comprehensive list of applications would also allow deciding, whether the lead content can be further reduced. Though the steel producers604 object to this approach due to decreased tool life and higher cutting forces, these machinability conditions seem to be adaptable in specific cases as the example of CETEHOR shows. As for lead in galvanized steel, the consultants understand that lead does not provide a function in the coating of parts used in EEE. It is understood that there are two cases for the presence of lead. In some plants, lead is present at the bottom of galvanisation baths as it precipitates from secondary zinc added to the process, and may thus be present in galvanised products. In other cases, lead may be added to facilitate the galvanising process of certain parts (for example steel mesh used for construction). Such practices were explained not to be directly relevant to EEE parts. However, as the galvanisation of parts for EEE is performed in the same baths, the presence of lead in some cases cannot be excluded. In both cases, lead is understood not to serve a functional purpose in the galvanisation of steel parts for EEE, but to be a result of the use of secondary zinc or of the manufacture of other parts: “Lead is present in the zinc coating of galvanised steels. Lead has no beneficial (or adverse) effect on the coated product, but may have a technical influence on the galvanizing process in a small number of plants”.605 The consultants conclude that the lead is mostly not intentionally added (or not added for itentions of relevance to the EEE part properties), but a result of the use of zinc scrap or of galvanizers’ ashes. The intentional addition of lead to a galvanizing bath where it is technically required could not be separated for EEE specific processes or products, which are understood to have only a small share of all galvanised parts.

18.6 Recommendation Based on the above considerations, it is recommended to split the exemption and provide different review periods for each entry. A short review period of three years is proposed for applications where lead is present for machining purposes. The overall picture where substitution efforts are promising is not clear enough at present to allow an adjustment of the scope. In parallel it is

604 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015b) 605 Op. cit. EUROFER and EGGA (2015a)

312

established that substitutes are practical at least for some applications. The aim of a future review should therefore be to evaluate results of a comprehensive survey of the supply related to the applications of leaded steel alloys together with their technical requirements. The aim should be to check the applicability of a more narrow scope for the exemption. The consultants would further recommend cancelling the exemption, should industry fail to provide detailed and substantiated information in the future. As for the exemption for batch hot dip galvanized steel, a lower threshold is proposed in agreement with the applicant for lead in batch hot dip galvanized steel items and a review period of the maximum permissible validity of five years is proposed for this part of the exemption, as the lead is mostly an unintentional impurity in the galvanizing bath. Exemption 6a Duration*

I) Lead as an alloying element in steel for machining purposes For Cat. 1-7 and 10 and 11: 21 July 2019 containing up to 0,35 % lead by weight

For Cat. 1-7 and 10 and 11: II) Lead in batch hot dip galvanized steel components 21 July 2021 containing up to 0.2% lead by weight

For Cat. 8 and 9: 21 July 2021; III) Lead as an alloying element in steel for machining purposes For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: 21 July 2023; and in galvanized steel containing up to 0,35 % lead by weight For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024; Note: As it can be understood that the exemption duration may vary for various categories on the basis of Article 5(2), expiration dates have been specified here for all categories either on the basis of the requested duration in the exemption request which the consultants perceive to be justified, or on the basis of the validity periods specified in Article 5(2) for categories, which are newly in scope.

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 313

18.7 References Exemption 6a CETEHOR (2015) Contribution by Comite Franceclat (French Watch, Clock, Jewellery, Silverware & Tableware Centre), CETEHOR, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _a_/Ex_6_a_Comite_Franceclat_Cetehor_20151012.pdf Dunkermotoren GmbH (2014) Dunkermotoren GmbH (2014), Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 15.12.2014, English version available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _a_/DUnkermotoren/Ex_6a_Dunkermotoren_150806_Ausnahmeantrag_Stahl_englis ch.pdf EGGA (2015) European General Galvanizers Association (EGGA) (2015), Answers to 2nd Clarification Questions, submitted 14.12.2015. EGGA (2016) European General Galvanizers Association (EGGA) (2016), Answers to 3rd Clarification Questions, submitted 01.03.2016. EUROFER & EGGA (2015a) European Steel Association (EUROFER) & European General Galvanizers Association (EGGA) (2015a), Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 16.01.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _a_/Eurofer/6a_RoHS_Application_Form_6a_16012015-.pdf EUROFER & EGGA (2015b) European Steel Association (EUROFER) & European General Galvanizers Association (EGGA) (2015b), Answers to Clarification Questions, revised version, submitted 15.09.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _a_/Eurofer/Ex_6a_Eurofer_1st_round_of_Clarification-Questions_final- 20150803_DRAFT_REPLY_-_EGGA_EUROFER_MCchanges15-9-15_revised.pdf EUROFER (2016a) European Steel Association (EUROFER) (2016a), Answers to 2nd Clarification Questions, submitted 15.01.2016. EUROFER (2016b) European Steel Association (EUROFER) (2016b), Answers to 3rd Clarification Questions, submitted 24.02.2016. Gensch et al. (2009) Oeko-Institut e. V., 20 February 2009, Adaptation to scientific and technical progress under Directive 2002/95/EC: Final Report. With the assistance of Stéphanie Zangl, Rita Groß, Anna Weber, Oeko-Institut e. V. and Otmar Deubzer, Fraunhofer IZM. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_reportl_rohs1_en.pdf Hashimura M. et al. (2007) Hashimura M., Miyanishi, K., Mizuno, A., Development of Low-Carbon Lead-Free Free-Cutting Steel Friendly to Environment, Nippon Steel Technical Report, No. 96, 2007, available under: http://www.nssmc.com/en/tech/report/nsc/pdf/n9608.pdf

314

JBCE (2015) Contribution by JBCE – Japan Business Council in Europe in a.i.b.l, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _a_/Comment_on_public_cousulation_of_Exemption_request_2015-2_6_a__.pdf KEMI (2015) Contribution by KEMI Kemikalieinspektionen, Swedish Chemicals Agency, submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _a_/Ex_6a_KEMI_Answer_to_SC_RoHS_20151016_Lead_in_Steel.pdf NSSMC (2015) Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Corporation (NSSMC) (2015), Information submitted by email, 07.12.2015. NSSMC (2016) Nippon Steel and Sumitomo Metal Corporation (NSSMC) (2016), Answers to Clarification Questions, submitted 08.01.2016. PennEngineering (2015a) Contribution by PennEngineering, submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/ fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_a_/Ex_6a_PennEngineering_Con sultation_Questionnaire_PE_AS_20151016.pdf PennEngineering (2015b) PennEngineering (2015b), Answers to Clarification Questions, submitted 14.12.2015. Robert Bosch GmbH (2015) Contribution by Robert Bosch GmbH, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _a_/Bosch-Stakeholder-contribution-Exemption-request-6a.pdf Sensata Technologies (2015a) Sensata Technologies Holland B.V. (2015a), Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 15.01.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _a_/Sensata_Technologies/6a_6b_6c_RoHS-Exemptions_Application- Format_Ex_6a_b_c_Pb_in_St_Al_Cu.pdf Sensata Technologies (2015b) Sensata Technologies Holland B.V. (2015b), Answers to Clarification Questions, submitted 20.08.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _c_/Sensata/Ex_6a6b6c_Sensata_Questions_response_20150820.pdf Test & Measurement Coalition (2015) Contribution by Test & Measurement Coalition, submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/ Exemption_1_a-e_/General_Contribution_Test___Measurement_Coalition_ package_9_exemptions_20151016.pdf

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 315

19.0 Exemption 6b: "Lead as an alloying element in aluminium containing up to 0,4 % lead by weight"

Declaration In the sections that precede the “Critical Review” the phrasings and wordings of stakeholders’ explanations and arguments have been adopted from the documents provided by the stakeholders as far as required and reasonable in the context of the evaluation at hand. Formulations have been altered in cases where it was necessary to maintain the readability and comprehensibility of the text. These sections are based exclusively on information provided by applicants and stakeholders, unless otherwise stated.

Acronyms and Definitions 2011 AA 2011, leaded Al wrought alloy Al Aluminium AA 6023 Lead-free bismuth containing wrought alloy AlEco62Sn Lead-free bismuth containing wrought alloy EAA European Aluminium Association ECHA European Chemicals Agency EEE Electrical and Electronic Equipment ELV End-of-Life Vehicle EoL End-of-Life JBCE Japan Business Council in Europe KEMI Kemikalieinspektionen, Swedish Chemicals Agency Pb Lead tpa Tonnes per annum TMC Test & Measurement Coalition WEEE Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment

316

19.1 Background The European Aluminium Association (EAA), Sensata Technologies and Dunkermotoren have applied for the renewal of exemption 6b, requesting the current wording formulation of the exemption as appears in Annex III of the RoHS Directive. Aluminium (Al) alloys can be differentiated into two principal classifications:606 · Wrought alloys: Al alloys primarily used for wrought products; they have an alloy content up to 10% and therefore strict and very low tolerance limits for the alloying elements. Wrought alloys are designated with a four-digit number according to the alloy designation system. · Cast alloys: Al alloys primarily used for the production of castings; cast alloys have much higher tolerance limits for alloying elements; the alloy concentration is of up to 20%. For cast alloys, a different designation system with five digits is used. The association of the Al manufacturers, EAA,607 with support of many EEE manufacturer associations608 requests the extension of the exemption without specifying an expiration date. Dunkermotoren,609 a component manufacturer, requests the exemption specifically for the manufacturing of gear parts in engine and transmission parts for a period of two to five years. Sensata Technologies, a manufacturer of sensor and control

606 EAA (202), European Aluminium Association EAA (2002), The Automotive Manual; http://www.european-aluminium.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/AAM-Materials-3-Designation- system.pdf; Paraskevas, D. et al. (2013), Closed and Open Loop Recycling of Aluminium: A Life Cycle Assessment perspective; 11th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing, 23rd to 25th September Berlin, Germany. 607 EAA (2015a), European Aluminium Association (EAA) (2015a), Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 16.01.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_b_/AISBL/6b_Final _RoHS_Exemption_Renewal_Dossier_2015_01_16.pdf 608 The EEA’s exemption request was supported by the following bodies: American Chamber of Commerce to the EU (AmCham EU); Avago Technologies Limited; DIGITALEUROPE; European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers (CECED); European Copper Institute (ECI); European Coordination Committee of the Radiological, Electromedical and Healthcare IT Industry (COCIR); European Garden Machinery Industry Federation (EGMF); European Passive Components Industry Association (EPCIA); European Semiconductor Industry Association (ESIA); Gesamtverband der Aluminiumindustrie e.V.; Information Technology Industry Council (ITI); IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries; Knowles (UK) Ltd; LightingEurope; SPECTARIS; TechAmerica Europe; WirtschaftsVereinigung Metalle (WVM); ZVEI - Zentralverband Elektrotechnik- und Elektronikindustrie e.V.. 609 Dunkermotoren GmbH (2015), Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 15.12.2015, English version available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_b_/Dunkermotoren /Ex_6b_Dunkermotoren_150806_Ausnahmeantrag_Aluminium_englisch.pdf

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 317

products, stated after an investigation within its supply chain that the company is not making use of this exemption.610 EAA thus requests the renewal of Ex. 6b with the following wording: “Lead as an alloying element in aluminium containing up to 0,4 % lead by weight”

19.1.1 History of the Exemption As for the history of the exemption, it has to be noted that since the RoHS 1 Directive was published in 2002, Exemption 6 has covered lead as an alloying element in steels, aluminium and copper.611 After the last revision on 2009612, exemption 6 was split into three exemptions 6a, 6b and 6c for each alloy respectively. A corresponding exemption exists under the ELV Directive 2000/53/EC (ELV, listed in Annex II, as Exemption 2(c)). It was reviewed in 2015; the evaluation report has yet to be published. During the ELV revision, the consultants investigated the possibility of introducing a split into the aluminium alloy exemptions making a distinction between cases where Al is not intentionally introduced and cases where a lead content of up to 0,4 % by weight is required in Al alloys to enhance machinability. This split was proposed due to the information of the automotive industry that showed a clear distinction could be made into cast alloys that are used for big parts in vehicles, e.g. engine-blocks or gearbox housings, and between wrought alloys that are mainly used for manufacturing small parts, e.g. valve actuation, axis pins for pivot levers or oil return stop valves. The use of cast alloys in the automotive sector makes up 95% of the total use of leaded Al alloys in this sector.

610 Sensata Technologies (2015b), Sensata Technologies Holland B.V. (2015b), Answers to Clarification Questions, submitted 20.08.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Sensata/Ex_6a6 b6c_Sensata_Questions_response_20150820.pdf 611 The wording of exemption 6 was as follows: “Lead as an alloying element in steel containing up to 0,35% lead by weight, aluminium containing up to 0,4% lead by weight and as a copper alloy containing up to 4% lead by weight”; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32002L0095&from=EN 612 Gensch, et al. (2009), Carl-Otto Gensch, Oeko-Institut e. V., et al. 20 February (2009), Adaptation to scientific and technical progress under Directive 2002/95/EC: Final Report. With the assistance of Stéphanie Zangl, Rita Groß, Anna Weber, Oeko-Institut e. V. and Otmar Deubzer, Fraunhofer IZM. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_reportl_rohs1_en.pdf

318

19.1.2 Amount of Lead Used under the Exemption According to EAA,613 data availability is limited as to the amount of lead used under this exemption, due to a lack of knowledge on the type of leaded Al alloys used in EEE products and components on the EU market. EAA614 explains that there are data on the “amount of wrought products, extruded products and secondary alloys shipped to the EEE and machinery sectors (consumption) from EU producers. However, there is no data available concerning which of these products/alloys contain lead and their quantity. Furthermore, no data available indicates that the amount of final EEE products produced using EU Al alloys is actually placed on the EU market.” When asked to indicate at least a range of the amount of leaded aluminium alloys in the EU used for EEE, EEA615 states that “the potentially lead-containing Al alloys produced by producers in the EU and EFTA region (not the ones placed on the EU market) used in the high tech engineering sectors (not necessarily only EEE products) is most likely in the range of 100Kt to 1 Mt pa.” In this respect it can be noted that the U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook of 2014616 estimates that 6.9% of Al product shipments of US and Canada are shipped to electronic end-users. In 2014 this share represented 809 thousand metric tonnes.

19.2 Description of Requested Exemption According to information provided by EEA617 in the original renewal request, the use of leaded Al alloys can be differentiated into Al alloys where the lead content is unintentional, due to the use of secondary raw material from aluminium scrap and into aluminium alloys, where lead is intentionally added for machining purposes: · Cast alloys unintentionally contain lead, due to the use of Al scrap for the manufacture of such alloys; relevant applications in which such alloys are used

613 EAA (2015b), European Aluminium Association (EAA) (2015b), Answers to Clarification Questions, revised version, submitted 14.08.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_b_/AISBL/2015081 4_Ex_6b_EAA_Ex_1st_round_of_Clarification-Questions_final_EAA_answer.pdf The additional information was supported by the following industry associations and companies: DIGITALEUROPE; European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers (CECED); European Passive Components Industry Association (EPCIA); European Semiconductor Industry Association (ESIA); Gesamtverband der Aluminiumindustrie e.V.; Information Technology Industry Council (ITI); European Garden Machinery Industry Federation (EGMF); LightingEurope; ZVEI - Zentralverband Elektrotechnik- und Elektronikindustrie e.V. 614 Op. cit. EAA (2015b) 615 EEA (2016), European Aluminium Association (EAA) (2016), Answers to 2nd Clarification Questions, submitted 29.01.2016. 616 USGS (2015), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (2015), Minerals Yearbook of 2014 – Aluminium [Advanced Release], table 6, pg. 5-15, available under: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/myb1-2014-alumi.pdf 617 Op. cit. EAA (2015a)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 319

include e.g. frameworks of lamps and lights, heat sinks, electrical and electronic items in housings etc. · Wrought alloys, or Al alloys intentionally containing lead for machining purposes: Relevant applications where such alloys are used are not detailed. The functions of lead are indicated as lubrication, better chip fracturing, surface finish, higher cutting speed and longer tool life. Wrought alloys are often used in screw machine products according to EAA618, e.g. various machinery components, screws, bolts, fittings, nuts, automatic lathe products. As this differentiation was in line with information available through the ELV review on leaded Al alloys used in the automotive sector, stakeholders were asked during the RoHS stakeholder consultation619 whether a possible split of the exemption, differentiating between aluminium alloys where lead is not intentionally introduced and between aluminium alloys where lead is added to obtain certain properties would be practical. Thereupon, EAA620 submitted a contribution stating the following: “As already stated, lead can be added to the alloys to perform a certain function and lead can be present in the alloys when alloys are produced e.g. from scrap. The former is termed as intentionally leaded alloys and the later, unintentionally leaded alloys. However, there is no straightforward link between intentional/unintentional and wrought/casting, i.e. while casting alloys are mostly produced from scrap, for the production of wrought alloys, scrap can also be used as input. Therefore a distinction of intentional and unintentional cannot be made according to the type of alloys. The exemption 6b has been applied to Al alloys in general which has left the demand and market to determine the most effective utilisation of Al material available to EU producers. An arbitrary distinction of product by the purpose or none-purpose of lead could affect the supply and demand chain. The consequences of these changes are yet to be studied from technical, environmental and economical points of view. The industry will need time to comprehend such studies and changes.”

618 Op. cit. EAA (2015a) 619 http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Consultation_Questionnaires/ Ex_6b_Consultation_Questionnaire.pdf 620 EAA (2015c), Contribution by European Aluminium Association (EAA) (2015c), submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_b_/Ex_6b_Europea n_Aluminium_Consultation_Questionnaire_answer_final_20151016.pdf

320

19.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption EAA621 claims that the exemption of 0,4% lead content in aluminium provides the possibility of the use of recycled aluminium within the EU. EAA622 explains that the scrap metal arising from products from the past can contain lead and that the presence of lead as impurity in the scrap flow is tolerated to a certain level for the production of many secondary alloys, which is specified in European standards. EAA623 states that separation of lead from the scrap is feasible in the remelting stage by for example phase separation, electrochemical refining and vacuum distillation, but that these methods are only approved on a laboratory scale and from an environmental and economical perspective not practicable. According to EAA,624 the dilution of the scrap with primary aluminium results in higher environmental impacts due to the fact that the production of primary aluminium is very energy intensive. As for lead in Al alloys used for machining purposes, EAA625 claims that lead acts as a lubricant during machining processes; through lead, better chip fracturing and surface finish as well as higher cutting speeds and a longer tool life are achieved. EAA was asked to exhaustively specify the functionality of lead in these applications e.g. specific function and properties, performance criteria, etc. EAA626 provided the following functionalities and performance aspects for lead in Al alloys: · Corrosion resistance of manufactured articles; · Surface finish of manufactured articles; · Longer life of manufacturing tools and less energy consumption during machining of parts; · Cutting speeds of manufacturing tools; · Lubrication effect in manufactured articles; · Better chip fracturing in manufactured articles; · Temperature resistance; · Electrochemical potential (of additive); · Shrinking from liquid to solid phase (of additive); · Durability of part; · Eutectic point of alloy. EAA did not provide performance indicators for these functionalities / performance aspects which would form a basis for testing the performance and comparing between Al alloys with and without lead. EAA627 stated thereupon that “the industry will need

621 Op. cit. EAA (2015a) 622 Op. cit. EAA (2015a) 623 Op. cit. EAA (2015a) 624 Op. cit. EAA (2015a) 625 Op. cit. EAA (2015b) 626 Op. cit. EAA (2016) 627 Op. cit. EAA (2016)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 321

sufficient time to organise a team of experts to conduct a comprehensive study, if enough number of manufacturers would be willing to take part in the study. This study shall address the following: · listing critical performance indicators for each of the functionalities of lead in Al alloys; · measuring/testing these indicators for lead Al alloys; · measuring/testing these indicators for potential substitutes if available. Such study, including an initial information and data collection and analysis and later on carrying out the necessary experiments, usually takes more than one year.” EAA628 also claims that they cannot clearly distinguish between the use of cast and wrought alloys for specific components: “The applications of Al Alloy (wrought and casting alloys) vary from one component to another. The use of the alloys is not strictly limited to a specific application in a component. Usually components producers design a component and specify the type of alloys they want to use to a supplier. There are hundreds if not thousands of components that may use Al alloys.”

19.3.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances EAA629 states that “substitution of lead as alloying element with bismuth is technically feasible.” EAA630 further states that “lead-free alloys with bismuth as a substitute, such as AlEco62Sn or AA 6023, have been developed to replace as far as possible some applications of 2011 alloy in the automotive sector. However the current state-of-the-art does not indicate any suitable substitute for lead in aluminium alloys used in the production of EEE products.” As major constraints, EAA631 claims that bismuth hampers existing recycling schemes and that secondary aluminium producers observe that bismuth creates an unwanted microstructure effect leading to potential problems in the refining and casting process. According to EAA,632 bismuth alloys (if in large amount) need to be separated from the others prior to the remelting stage. EAA633 further emphasises the possible restricted availability of bismuth as the production of bismuth is connected to the production of lead, in that the source of bismuth that comes to the market is a by-product of the lead production process.

628 Op. cit. EAA (2015b) 629 Op. cit. EAA (2015a) 630 Op. cit. EAA (2015a) 631 Op. cit. EAA (2015a) and (2015b) 632 Op. cit. EAA (2015a) 633 Op. cit. EAA (2015a) and (2015b)

322

19.3.2 Environmental Arguments According to EAA,634 a closed loop system exists for Al that includes the Al scrap from EEE. EAA635 further states that Al recycling accounts for about 70% of the Al produced in the EU. EAA636 claims that any restriction introduced to the exemption would impact the recycling of Al scrap and thus the EU circular economy.

19.3.3 Socio-Economic Impact of Substitution As for the substitution of lead by bismuth, EAA637 expects an increase in direct production costs as bismuth is around 10 to 15 times more expensive than lead. Furthermore EAA states “if the demand for bismuth increases and the demand for lead decreases, the price of bismuth may become even higher.” EAA638 also claims an increase in fixed costs, but without giving further information.

19.3.4 Roadmap to Substitution EAA639 did not provide a roadmap arguing that “given the fact that there is no suitable alternative, it is impossible to draw up any detailed roadmap at this stage.”

19.4 Stakeholder Contributions Five contributions to exemption 6b have been submitted during the stakeholder consultation. The contributions are presented in order of submission and shortly summarized: · The Robert Bosch GmbH640 generally supports the applicants without providing further information. · JBCE641 – Japan Business Council in Europe in a.i.b.l. states that they understand that EEE of category 8 and 9 are out of scope of this review. The JBCE understands that “the exemption 6(b) in annex III can be applied to category 8&9

634 Op. cit. EAA (2015a) 635 Op. cit. EAA (2015a) 636 Op. cit. EAA (2015a) 637 Op. cit. EAA (2015a) 638 Op. cit. EAA (2015a) 639 Op. cit. EAA (2015b) 640 Robert Bosch GmbH (2015), Contribution by Robert Bosch GmbH, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_b_/Bosch- Stakeholder-contribution-Exemption-request-6b.pdf 641 JBCE (2015), Contribution by JBCE – Japan Business Council in Europe in a.i.b.l, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_b_/Comment_on_ public_cousulation_of_Exemption_request_2015-2_6_b__.pdf

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 323

products for seven years from identified date when entry into force for each products, at the earliest July 2021.” EAA642 adds “better heat treatment performance of the manufactured material” as one more function of lead. EAA further comments on the proposal to split the exemption as detailed in section 19.3. · KEMI Kemikalieinspektionen, the Swedish Chemicals Agency643, interprets Article 5 in the RoHS Directive in the way that both the material or component and the specific applications need to be defined in the wording formulation of an exemption. Thus, “it is no longer legally possible to decide on an exemption for lead in aluminium alloys whatever the use is.” KEMI therefore proposes the split into a number of more specific exemptions related to applications where it has been verified that feasible alternatives are currently not available. · The Test & Measurement Coalition644 submitted a general contribution on Category 9 Industrial monitoring and control instruments, similar in nature to the contribution made by the JBCE.

19.5 Critical Review

19.5.1 REACH Compliance - Relation to the REACH Regulation Appendix A.1.0 of this report lists Entry 63 in Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation, stipulating that lead and its compounds shall not be placed on the market or used in articles supplied to the general public, if the concentration of lead (expressed as metal) in those articles or accessible parts thereof is equal to or greater than 0,05 % by weight, and those articles or accessible parts thereof may, during normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use, be placed in the mouth by children.645 Entry 63 however further specifies this restriction not to be applicable for articles within the scope of the RoHS Directive 2011/65/EU. Appendix A.1.0 of this report lists Entry 30 in Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation, stipulating that lead and its compounds shall not be placed on the market, or used, as

642 EEA (2016), European Aluminium Association (EAA) (2016), Answers to 2nd Clarification Questions, submitted 29.01.2016. 643 KEMI (2015),Contribution by KEMI Kemikalieinspektionen, Swedish Chemicals Agency, submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_b_/Ex_6b_KEMI_A nswer_to_SC_RoHS_20151016_Lead_in_aluminium.pdf 644 Test & Measurement Coalition (2015), Contribution by Test & Measurement Coalition, submitted 19 October 2015, available under http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_1_a- e_/General_Contribution_Test___Measurement_Coalition_package_9_exemptions_20151016.pdf 645 Other restrictions of entry 63 cover e.g. jewellery and are thus not applicable here.

324

substances, constituents of other substances, or in mixtures for supply to the general public. A prerequisite to granting the requested exemption would therefore be to establish whether the intended use of lead in this exemption request might weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by the REACH regulation. In the consultants’ understanding, the restriction for substances under Entry 30 of Annex XVII does not apply to the use of lead in this application as lead is used as an alloying element. In the consultants’ point of view it is not a supply of a lead as a substance, mixture or constituent of other mixtures to the general public. Pb is part of an article and as such, Entry 30 of Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation would not apply. No other entries, relevant for the use of lead in the requested exemption could be identified in Annex XIV and Annex XVII (status January 2016). Based on the current status of Annexes XIV and XVII of the REACH Regulation, the requested exemption would not weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by the REACH Regulation. An exemption could therefore be granted if other criteria of Art. 5(1)(a) apply.

19.5.2 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution Generally, the assessment of scientific and technical practicability of substitution of lead in Al alloys is hampered by the fact that EAA did not provide data on the use and application of Al alloys in the manufacturing of EEE. Substitution of lead is relevant in the applications where lead is present to perform a specific function. It is understood from the information provided by EAA that this is the case for Al alloys where lead is needed for machining purposes. Substitution options with tin and bismuth containing Al alloys are discussed in the following Section 19.5.2.1. The arguments provided by EAA generally object to bismuth as an appropriate general substitute for lead and are discussed in Section 19.5.2.2. The other applicant Dunkermotoren646 does not specify a substitute, but instead provides an estimate that to requalify each product with alternative materials of equivalent characteristics would require a period of 2 to 5 years. 19.5.2.1 Substitution of Lead in Al alloys It has to be noted that EAA did not provide information of any new research or other activities that indicate efforts to substitute the applications of these leaded Al alloys. EAA states that there are lead-free bismuth containing Al alloys AlEco62Sn and 6023, but notes that they are used in automotive components. The automotive industry647 indicated that AlEco62Sn and 6023 are used to substitute some applications of the 2011 Al alloy e.g. in “housings, disk plates, closing bodies, hexagonal nuts, sealing plugs,

646 Op. cit. Dunkermotoren GmbH (2015) 647 Op. cit. ACEA et al. (2014)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 325

anchors, washers.”648 E.g. nuts are indicated by EAA to be manufactured by leaded Al alloys for EEE. Thus it can be assumed that the mentioned alloys are basically scientifically and technically practicable for substitution. The Al manufacturer EURAL GNUTTI SpA.,649 identifying itself as of the largest European extruders of rods and bars in aluminium alloys with lead, contacted the consultants with the following statement: “Since several years all major extrusion companies have studied alloys which can substitute lead, and the results were multiple, and very much satisfactory and already well accepted by the market. We can assure and demonstrate that lead is absolutely unnecessary and can be eliminated, because there are now several alloys already well accepted in the automotive and electric/electronic industries, manufactured by several different extrusion companies, which can provide all the necessary characteristics by lead alloys which are: good machinability and chip forming, high mechanical properties, good surface finishing, good attitude to anodizing. There is no loss in any of the metal properties, no costs increase on the finished parts, on new aluminium lead-free alloys, which can justify the use of lead based alloys any further. I understand that the majority of the industry (aluminium extruders and machining companies) is asking to maintain the actual exemption 6b to remain at Pb max 0,40% on weight, but this is due to an unwillingness to modify the majority of existing industrial drawings. Nevertheless in United States, in Japan, a huge step towards the elimination of lead has been taken since years now, and automotive companies are already choosing lead-free alloys on new drawings and new applications. All worldwide industry, but the European, is expecting the elimination of lead in aluminium alloys.” A patent and marked research on new Al alloy developments published in 2011 confirms that within wrought Al alloys, the AlMgSi alloys (6xxx series) and AlCu alloys (2xxx series) contain either lead with a maximum of 0.4% or as substitution elements tin or bismuth respectively a combination of both. EURAL650 stated that lead-free tin containing Al alloys have good machinability and good surface finishing, but suffer temperature limitations > 140°C because tin “causes weakness and cracking of the machined parts when submitted to stress and high temperature. Due to its brittle nature, tin has the dangerous tendency to sudden brakes without significant previous deformation

648 ACEA et al. (2015), ACEA, JAMA, KAMA, CLEPA and EAA (2015), Answers to Clarification Questionnaire during the review of ELV exemption 2c, provided 27 February 2015. 649 EURAL (2016a), EURAL GNUTTI SpA. (2016a), Information provided by Email, submitted 26 February 2016 650 EURAL (2016b), EURAL GNUTTI SpA. (2016b), Information provided by Email, submitted 29 February 2016

326

(strain).”651 However, EURAL652 stresses that as many applications do not have stress and high temperature expositions tin based alloys are largely used on the market. For the tin and tin/bismuth based alloys, EURAL653 mentions different lead-free alloys of the following Al producers: Alcoa 6020, Eural 6012A, Constellium 6023, Impol 6028 and 2015, Aleris 6262A. EURAL654 further states that the bismuth based alloys do not have such temperature limits. EURAL lists as lead-free bismuth containing alloys the above mentioned lead-free alloy AlEco62Sn of Aleris655 and lead-free developments by Kaiser (e.g. AA 6033)656 and the EURAL alloy 6026. According to EURAL it took “quite some time to set up such alloys […], but now they are absolutely stable and giving excellent results, on each and every aspect related to machinability, chip forming, surface finishing, anodizing, corrosion resistance.” The EURAL 6026 alloy specification is presented in Annex A.4.0. The 6026 alloy is offered as being “particularly suitable for being machined on high speed automatic lathes. It has good resistance to corrosion, medium-high mechanical properties, good suitability for decorative and industrial hard anodizing. It is also used for hot forging purposes.” EURAL provided a technical laboratory report on the manufacture of brake pistons from alloy 6026, which is provided in Annex A.4.0. EURAL657 concludes from their tests that there are “no important differences in any of the mechanical factors, nor in the roughness on surface of the anodized samples, nor in the macro-graphical nor micro-graphical analysis.” The performance aspects indicated for leaded Al alloys by EAA such as corrosion resistance, surface finish, temperature resistance and durability of manufactured articles are understood to be covered. Also the machinability aspects such as longer life of manufacturing tools and less energy consumption during machining of parts, cutting speeds of manufacturing tools, lubrication effect and better chip fracturing are understood to be comparable. As for the application of 6026 in the EEE sector, EURAL658 explains to have “customers who are switching to the Bi only in the field of electronic valves, safety components for gas kitchens and burners, pneumatic sector. Quantities are in the range of about 1000 metric tons/year global.” EURAL659 estimates that a switch to lead-free Al alloys could be feasible for EEE manufacturers within one year taking into account replacement

651 Cited from EURAL 6026 material data sheet provided in Annex A.4.0 . 652 Op. cit EURAL (2016b) 653 Op. cit EURAL (2016b) 654 Op. cit EURAL (2016b) 655 https://www.aleris.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Aluminum-Extrusion-Plant- Overview_engl_DC_2012_11_20_final_web.pdf 656 http://www.kaiseraluminum.com/customers/products/extrusions/bar/#6033 657 EURAL (2016c), EURAL GNUTTI SpA. (2016c), Information provided by Email, submitted 01 March 2016. 658 Op. cit. EURAL (2016c) 659 Op. cit. EURAL (2016c)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 327

strategy, process of renewing drawings and making all trials and tests, looking for suppliers and the phase out of old remaining stock of old materials. The consultants understand from this information that there are alternatives on the market for lead based Al alloys that are reliable according to Al producers. It is also understood that in some cases EEE manufacturers already apply lead-free alloys, however the extent of these applications is not conclusive. 19.5.2.2 Arguments provided by EAA EAA660 generally excludes bismuth as a substitute for lead in Al alloys for two reasons: · Bismuth has no own primary production but is a by-product of lead production; · Difficulties in Al recycling if the share of bismuth Al alloys rises. A bismuth inventory set up for a life cycle assessment of solders for the US EPA in 2005661 compiled data according to which bismuth is primarily co­mined with other metals, including lead (35 %), copper (35 %), tungsten (15-20 %, from China), and tin and other miscellaneous metals (10 to 15 %) concluding that lead and copper co-mining consist of the majority (70 percent) of the worldwide bismuth supply. The consultants assume that the co-mining of bismuth with lead is not a sufficient reason to claim that the substitution of bismuth causes higher negative environmental, health and consumer safety impacts compared to lead. It might show however that the availability of bismuth could be limited. Though bismuth is not considered as a critical raw material by the EC662, there are individual studies663 that consider bismuth to be critical due to the production in a small number of countries and the production by co-mining. However, those considerations are not foreseen to be part of an exemption evaluation under RoHS. Furthermore, where bismuth would be produced through co-mining of lead, if the lead could not be used for manufacture, it would be concentrated at a single location (the smelting location). This would make the sound handling of lead and the control of possible emissions easier than the case of lead being present at a low concentration in numerous applications, for which proper disposal, collection and treatment are more complex. As for the argument that bismuth hampers recycling, EAA did not provide any further evidence then the following: “It has been experienced and discussed within the

660 Op. cit. EAA (2015a) 661 Geibig & Leet Socolof (2005), Geibig, J. R., Leet Socolof M. (2005), Solders in Electronics: A Life-Cycle Assessment, EPA 744-R-05-001, August 2005; available under: http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-12/documents/lead_free_solder_lca_full.pdf 662 http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/raw-materials/specific-interest/critical/index_en.htm 663 E.g. a study available in German on mineral resources: Erdmann, L.; Behrendt, S. Institut für Zukunftsstudien und Technologiebewertung (IZT), Berlin; Feil, M. adelphi, Berlin (2011), Kritische Rohstoffe für Deutschland „Identifikation aus Sicht deutscher Unternehmen wirtschaftlich bedeutsamer mineralischer Rohstoffe, deren Versorgungslage sich mittel- bis langfristig als kritisch erweisen könnte“, Berlin, den 30. September 2011; available under: https://www.izt.de/fileadmin/publikationen/54416.pdf

328

secondary aluminium producers that bismuth creates an unwanted microstructure effect leading to potential problems in the refining and casting process. Thus bismuth alloys (if in large amount) need to be separated from the others for remelting.” On the basis of available documents concerning Al recycling,664 it is understood that in the recycling of aluminium the accumulation of impurities is a general problem for operators. E.g. the review of Gaustad et al. (2012) 665 but also other publications666 mention two approaches commonly used today to deal with the presence of undesired impurities in the recycling of aluminium: Dilution and “Down-cycling” where wrought scrap is used in cast products because cast alloys have the lowest purity requirements. Compensation of impurities can take place by dilution with purer aluminium fractions or with primary aluminium in order to reach specified product quality. The following figure illustrates the Al recycling options that depend on the purity of the Al alloys. Figure 19 .1: Al recycling options and Al cascade recycling

Source: Paraskevas, D. et al. (2013)

664 Gaustad et al. (2012), Gaustad, G. et al. (2012), Improving aluminum recycling: A survey of sorting and impurity removal technologies; Resources, Conservation and Recycling 58 (2012) 79– 87; Op. cit. Paraskevas, D. et al. (2013); EAA/OEA Recycling Division (2006), European Aluminium Association EAA and Organisation of European Aluminium Refiners and Remelters OEA (2006), Aluminium Recycling in Europe, The Road to High Quality Products, 2006; http://www.european-aluminium.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Aluminium-recycling- in-Europe-2007.pdf 665 Op. cit. Gaustad et al. (2012) 666 Paraskevas, D. et al. (2013)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 329

Furthermore, EAA and OEA667 anticipate a growing volume of wrought alloy scrap as of 2015/2020, due to an increased use of specialized wrought alloys and therefore envisage optimised sorting techniques of different wrought alloys both from cars668 and from other sources in order to avoid dilution and down-cycling. To conclude, the consultants cannot follow the arguments provided by EAA as to why bismuth poses a particular impurity problem in Al recycling. The consultants do not assume that if the exemption on leaded Al alloys for machining purposes will expire that Al recycling is endangered.

19.5.3 Environmental Arguments As for cast alloys, the consultants understand that lead is unintentionally present due to the use of scrap and does not provide a function. In such cases, the consultants agree that the reuse of resources recycled from end-of-life (EoL) products has a positive value from an environmental perspective. According to EAA, the recycling of aluminium requires about 95% less energy than that required to produce primary aluminium.669 It is thus understood that the use of secondary material results in a significantly lower environmental impact in terms of energy consumption. Furthermore, it has been explained by EAA that the removal of lead from aluminium through a metallurgical process is technically not yet feasible on an industrial scale670 (see section 19.3). Thus the consultants can follow the estimation of EAA671 that the elimination of lead from the Al recycling stream by methods such as phase separation, electrochemical refining and vacuum distillation is technically impracticable.

19.5.4 Stakeholder Contributions Five contributions were submitted to the stakeholder consultation. The contributions of KEMI,672 Bosch673 and EAA674 are discussed in the sections above as well as below. The contributions submitted by TMC675 and JBCE676 raise a legal question as to the availability of the current exemption to category 8 and 9 equipment. TMC and JBCE claim the availability of Annex III exemptions to category 8 and 9 for seven years starting in 22.7.2017.

667 Op. cit. EAA/OEA Recycling Division (2006) 668 Op. cit. EAA/OEA Recycling Division (2006) 669 http://european-aluminium.eu/data/recycling-data/ 670 Op. cit. EAA (2015a) 671 Op. cit. EAA (2015a) 672 Op. cit. KEMI (2015) 673 Op. cit. Bosch (2015) 674 Op. cit. EAA (2015c) 675 Op. cit. TMC (2015) 676 Op. cit. JBCE (2015)

330

EAA677 stated in this regard: “We apply for renewal of this exemption for categories 1 to 7, 10 and 11 of Annex I for an additional validity period of 5 years. For these categories, the validity of this exemption may be required beyond this timeframe. Although applications in this exemption renewal request may be relevant to categories 8 & 9 this renewal request does not address these categories. Further, categories 8 & 9 have separate maximum validity periods and time limits for application for renewals...;” As leaded Al alloys are understood to be relevant to all categories, it can be concluded that expiration dates should be specified for all categories.

19.5.5 The Scope of the Exemption The scope of the current exemption is viewed as very wide. As mentioned above, the contribution of the Swedish Chemicals Agency KEMI makes reference to Article 5(1)(a) that stipulates an inclusion of materials and components of EEE for specific applications in the lists in Annexes III and IV. The specifications of applications are so far missing for exemption 6b. KEMI therefore proposes to split into a number of more specific exemptions, related to applications where it has been verified that feasible alternatives are currently not available. EAA indicated some components manufactured by e.g. cast and wrought alloys but did not provide a comprehensive list because “there are hundreds if not thousands components may use Al alloys”.678 It is possible that a comprehensive list of applications may be long and impractical for refining the scope of the exemption, though in lack of substitutes the consultants agree that clarifying this aspect would be of importance for understanding the potential for exemption specification. However, as discussed above there are substitutes for the use of leaded Al alloys for machining purposes. Therefore, it is assumed that such substitutes can be applied, whereas only for applications where performance can be proven as non-comparable could the exemption be renewed again should this be found to be justified in the next review of the exemption. If such applications would be made, it is expected that limiting the exemption to specific components or specific product ranges shall be addressed in applications. This would provide a basis for making such adjustments to future exemptions. As for cast alloys, the consultants understand that lead is unintentionally present due to the use of scrap and does not provide a function. For the cast alloys produced from Al scrap, the substitution of lead is consequently not an issue. The consultants do not see the added value to specify applications for cast alloys but rather to specify the unintentional presence through an individual exemption. Therefore, the consultants favour the option of splitting the exemption, differentiating between aluminium alloys

677 Op. cit. EAA (2015a) 678 Op. cit. EAA (2015b)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 331

where lead is not intentionally introduced and between aluminium alloys where lead is added to obtain certain properties. This is further discussed in the following Section 19.5.6.

19.5.6 Exemption Wording Formulation The need to narrow down the exemption is evident. However, the consultants cannot conclude a list of exhaustive applications of leaded Al alloys for cast and wrought alloys on the basis of the available information, nor would it be practicable at present to conclude for each component whether lead-free substitutes are applied in some cases or not, i.e. if it is justified to retain the exemption for such components. Instead, a split of the exemption is considered between lead in Al alloys, provided that it is not intentionally introduced and in lead in Al alloys for machining purposes. The first part covering the cast alloys could be granted for the longest review period, which is possible under RoHS, as to completely eliminate lead in recycled Al would only be possible in the long term. The quicker the shift to lead-free alloys, the quicker such a reduction could be expected, though it must be kept in mind that alloys used for EEE probably consist of less than 10% of the Al alloy market share. The second part of the split would allow setting a short review period for leaded Al used for machining purposes, in order to signalize the short termed validity of the exemption, so that industry can prepare for its expiration. EAA argues that a differentiation into alloys where lead is unintentionally added is not straightforward because for the production of wrought alloys, scrap can also be used as input. However, in the consultants’ opinion the term “not intentionally introduced” is meant to describe the presence of lead where its presence does not provide a function. Where lead is needed for providing a function, regardless if it is added to the alloy or if its presence as an impurity in recycled content is sufficient to ensure the relevant functions, its presence has an intention, i.e. to provide a specific function for the machining and/or in the final component. The consultants understand from the input of EAA that for wrought alloys, the lead might not always be “newly” added but rather present at a sufficient concentration in Al used for production. However, taking into account the strict chemical composition of wrought alloys, the consultants understand that if wrought alloy scrap is used as input it has to be strictly sorted scrap. According to Paraskevas et al.679, the production of wrought alloys is heavily dependent on primary Al consumption due to their strict and very low tolerance limits for alloying elements. Thus the consultants understand that even if scrap is used in the production of wrought alloys, the lead level needs to be controlled and not only tolerated as impurity upon a specified level, i.e. the minimum amount needed to provide the relevant performance would need to be monitored and where lacking corrected.

679 Op. cit. Paraskevas, D. et al. (2013)

332

Another aspect for cast alloys, relevant in the long term is that the content of lead in cast alloys produced from scrap is expected to decrease: The automotive industry and European Aluminium Association680 stated during the recent revision of the corresponding ELV exemption that “since last stakeholder consultation [on the corresponding ELV exemption in 2009/2010], a slight reduction of the average Lead amount introduced by recycling could have been recognized. This can be explained by larger shares of the cars/industrial goods that will be recycled has been produced under Lead restrictions.” Questioned whether the same is true for WEEE recycling and whether all Al scrap is collected and treated together (or alternatively if applications from different sectors are collected and treated separately), EAA681 states that “this decreasing trend observed in the recycling of ELVs is not yet visible in the case of EEEs. Compared to Al scrap from ELVs, the amount of Al scrap from EEE is much smaller. Also, most of the Al scraps from EEE waste, though maybe collected and treated separately, are recycled together with other Al scraps. This could be the main reason that the change of Pb content is not so visible in the case of WEEE.” To conclude however, it can be expected the lead content will decrease, which could be reflected in future reviews by lowering the threshold for the unintentional presence of lead in Al alloys. The automotive industry682 estimates the maximum lead content in recycled Aluminium from ELVs in 2023 at 0.2% in Western Europe and at 0.24% in South Eastern Europe. As it is understood that Al alloys from EEE are recycled with alloys of other sources, a similar reduction in the amount of lead in lead-based cast alloys can also be expected.

19.5.7 Conclusions Article 5(1)(a) provides that an exemption can be justified if at least one of the following criteria is fulfilled: · their elimination or substitution via design changes or materials and components which do not require any of the materials or substances listed in Annex II is scientifically or technically impracticable; · the reliability of substitutes is not ensured; · the total negative environmental, health and consumer safety impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the total environmental, health and consumer safety benefits thereof. In the consultants’ opinion, a split of the exemption would allow differentiating in the future between applications of aluminium alloys where lead is unintentionally present and between applications where lead provides necessary properties.

680 ACEA et al. (2014), ACEA, JAMA, KAMA, CLEPA and EAA (2014a), Industry contribution of ACEA, JAMA, KAMA, CLEPA and EAA, submitted during the online stakeholder consultation, retrieved from http://elv.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/Consultation_2014_1/Ex_2c/20141210_ACEA_An nexII_2c_amended.pdf 681 Op. cit. EAA (2015b) 682 Op. cit. ACEA et al. (2015)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 333

As for the unintentional presence of lead, elimination from the Al recycling stream does not seem to be technically practicable because available methods are not developed beyond a laboratory scale. It is further understood that the use of secondary lead in the production of Al alloys for casting allows a significant reduction in the energy consumed to produce the alloys (i.e. the energy associated with the manufacture of primary Al is significantly reduced). Thus, lead as an impurity is to be accepted though it is understood that the level of impurities in alloys is controlled. Therefore the consultants recommend granting the maximum exemption validity possible under RoHS for various categories. In the long term however, it is expected that that the lead content in the Al recycling stream will decrease and this should be monitored in the future as it can be expected to be the focus of future reviews. As for lead in Al alloys for machining purposes, it can be followed that substitutes are available on the market for which reliability is claimed by alloy producers. In the consultants opinion EU COM should give a clear sign to industry that this exemption is to expire, that the available substitutes are to be tested and implemented as such. Further exemptions for specific applications shall only be acceptable where there is sufficient evidence that lead cannot be reliably substituted. In this case, the consultants propose a review period of three years. From available documentation, the consultants cannot conclude to what degree, the majority of EEE manufacturers are aware of these new developments and subsequently if broad range substitution can be assumed to be underway or not. Manufacturers of EEE products and components did not participate in the stakeholder consultation and EEA claims not to have access to such data. The consultants conclude that the exemption could be renewed for a short period, to allow EEE manufacturers a sufficient transition period for applying lead-free alloys available on the market. From EURAL’s information the implementation of substitutes does not require more than a year. Though this could allow a phase-out of lead-based alloys within a short period, EURAL submitted its information shortly before the evaluation concluded. Other stakeholders have not had a chance to become familiar with such information and its possible implications, and shall not have one before the publication of this report, and it is thus anticipated that a longer period could be relevant. E.g. the applicant Dunkermotoren683 estimates to need a period of 2 to 5 years for requalification of each product (gear parts in engine and transmission parts). Furthermore, as the amount of components to be covered could be significant, a longer transition period would be needed, also allowing manufacturers to apply for new exemptions for the use of specific lead-based alloys in specific components, where third party testing can substantiate that lead-free alloys provide inferior performance.

683 Op. cit. Dunkermotoren GmbH (2015)

334

19.6 Recommendation Based on the above considerations, it is recommended to split the exemption. A review period of five years is proposed for the exemption entry on the unintentionally introduced lead, i.e., alloys used for the production of non-machined parts. A short review period of three years is proposed for applications where lead is present for machining purposes. This would allow industry a longer transition period towards substitutes, as well as providing time to apply for new exemptions should substitutes not be comparable in performance for specific applications.

Exemption 6b: Lead as an alloying element in aluminium Duration* I) with a lead content up to 0.4 % by weight, used for the For Cat. 1-7 and 10 and 11: 21 July 2021 production of parts not machined with shape cutting chipping technologies For Cat. 1-11: 21 July 2019 II) for machining purposes with a lead content up to 0.4 % by weight

For Cat. 8 and 9: 21 July 2021 III) Lead as an alloying element in aluminium containing up to For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: 21 July 2023 0,4 % lead by weight For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024 Note: As it can be understood that the exemption duration may vary for various categories on the basis of Article 5(2), expiration dates have been specified here for all categories either on the basis of the requested duration in the exemption request which the consultants perceive to be justified, or on the basis of the validity periods specified in Article 5(2) for categories, which are newly in scope.

19.7 References Exemption 6b ACEA et al. (2014) ACEA, JAMA, KAMA, CLEPA and EAA (2014a), Industry contribution of ACEA, JAMA, KAMA, CLEPA and EAA, submitted during the online stakeholder consultation, available under: http://elv.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/Consultation_2014_1/Ex_2c/ 20141210_ACEA_AnnexII_2c_amended.pdf ACEA et al. (2015) ACEA, JAMA, KAMA, CLEPA and EAA (2015), Answers to Clarification Questionnaire during the review of ELV exemption 2c, provided 27 February 2015. Dunkermotoren GmbH (2015) Dunkermotoren GmbH (2015), Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 15.12.2015, English version available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _b_/Dunkermotoren/Ex_6b_Dunkermotoren_150806_Ausnahmeantrag_Aluminium_ englisch.pdf

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 335

EAA (2015a) European Aluminium Association (EAA) (2015a), Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 16.01.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _b_/AISBL/6b_Final_RoHS_Exemption_Renewal_Dossier_2015_01_16.pdf EAA (2015b) European Aluminium Association (EAA) (2015b), Answers to Clarification Questions, revised version, submitted 14.08.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _b_/AISBL/20150814_Ex_6b_EAA_Ex_1st_round_of_Clarification- Questions_final_EAA_answer.pdf EAA (2015c) Contribution by European Aluminium Association (EAA) (2015c), submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _b_/Ex_6b_European_Aluminium_Consultation_Questionnaire_answer_final_201510 16.pdf EAA/OEA Recycling Division (2006) European Aluminium Association EAA and Organisation of European Aluminium Refiners and Remelters OEA, Aluminium Recycling in Europe, The Road to High Quality Products, 2006; available under: http://www.european-aluminium.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Aluminium- recycling-in-Europe-2007.pdf EEA (2016) European Aluminium Association (EAA), Answers to 2nd Clarification Questions, submitted 29.01.2016. EURAL (2016a) EURAL GNUTTI SpA., Information provided by Email, submitted 26 February 2016. EURAL (2016b) EURAL GNUTTI SpA., Information provided by Email, submitted 29 February 2016. EURAL (2016c) EURAL GNUTTI SpA., Information provided by Email, submitted 01 March 2016. Gaustad et al. (2012), Improving aluminum recycling: A survey of sorting and impurity removal technologies; Resources, Conservation and Recycling 58 (2012) 79– 87. Geibig & Socolof (2005) Geibig, J. R., Leet Socolof M., Solders in Electronics: A Life-Cycle Assessment, EPA 744-R-05-001, August 2005; available under: http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013- 12/documents/lead_free_solder_lca_full.pdf Gensch, et al. (2009) Carl-Otto Gensch, Oeko-Institut e. V., et al. 20 February 2009, Adaptation to scientific and technical progress under Directive 2002/95/EC: Final Report. With the assistance of Stéphanie Zangl, Rita Groß, Anna Weber, Oeko-Institut e. V. and Otmar Deubzer, Fraunhofer IZM. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_reportl_rohs1_en.pdf

336

JBCE (2015) Contribution by JBCE – Japan Business Council in Europe in a.i.b.l, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _b_/Comment_on_public_cousulation_of_Exemption_request_2015-2_6_b__.pdf KEMI (2015) Contribution by KEMI Kemikalieinspektionen, Swedish Chemicals Agency, submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _b_/Ex_6b_KEMI_Answer_to_SC_RoHS_20151016_Lead_in_aluminium.pdf Koch et al. (2011) Koch, S., Antrekowitsch, H., Investigations of Lead-free Aluminium Alloys for Machining; World of Metallurgy – ERZMETALL 64 (2011) No 1, 26 – 30 Paraskevas, D. et al. (2013), Closed and Open Loop Recycling of Aluminium: A Life Cycle Assessment perspective; 11th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing, 23rd to 25th September Berlin, Germany. Robert Bosch GmbH (2015) Contribution by Robert Bosch GmbH, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _b_/Bosch-Stakeholder-contribution-Exemption-request-6b.pdf Sensata Technologies (2015a) Sensata Technologies Holland B.V., Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 15.01.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _b_/Sensata/6a_6b_6c_RoHS-Exemptions_Application- Format_Ex_6a_b_c_Pb_in_St_Al_Cu.pdf Sensata Technologies (2015b) Sensata Technologies Holland B.V., Answers to Clarification Questions, submitted 20.08.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _c_/Sensata/Ex_6a6b6c_Sensata_Questions_response_20150820.pdf TMC (2015) Contribution by Test & Measurement Coalition, submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_1 _a- e_/General_Contribution_Test___Measurement_Coalition_package_9_exemptions_2 0151016.pdf USGS (2015) U.S. Geological Survey, Minerals Yearbook of 2014 – Aluminium [Advanced Release], table 6, pg. 5-15, available under: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/myb1-2014-alumi.pdf

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 337

20.0 Exemption 6c: "Copper alloy containing up to 4% lead by weight"

Declaration In the sections that precede the “Critical Review” the phrasings and wordings of stakeholders’ explanations and arguments have been adopted from the documents provided by the stakeholders as far as required and reasonable in the context of the evaluation at hand. Formulations have been altered in cases where it was necessary to maintain the readability and comprehensibility of the text. These sections are based exclusively on information provided by applicants and stakeholders, unless otherwise stated.

Acronyms and Definitions 353 / C35300 Copper alloy with 1.5 to 2.5% Pb 360 / C36000 CuZn39Pb3, copper alloy with 3.3% Pb CuZn21Si3P Lead-free silicon-containing copper alloy CuZn39Pb3 Copper alloy with 3.3% Pb CuZn37Mn3Al2PbSi Copper alloy with 0.2 to 0.8% Pb CuZn42 Lead-free copper alloy with a higher zinc content ECHA European Chemicals Agency EEE Electrical and Electronic Equipment ELV End-of-Life Vehicle HID High intensity discharge lamps JBCE Japan Business Council in Europe KEMI Kemikalieinspektionen, Swedish Chemicals Agency LEU LightingEurope Pb Lead TMC Test & Measurement Coalition Tpa Tonnes per annuum WEEE Waste EEE

338

20.1 Background Lead is embedded as tiny nodules in the matrix of copper alloys. It thereby acts as chip breaker and lubricant. This gives leaded copper alloys a favourable machinability, but also properties provided by lead in the finished component, such as e.g. electrical conductivity, slide functionality for parts with closely fit sliding surfaces and corrosion resistance. The lead content in copper alloys (brass) can vary between 0.2 to 4.2% in accordance with European standards.684 Among them, the alloy CuZn39Pb3 / C36000 is very commonly used as a standard alloy of copper and zinc containing 3.3% lead. Six applications were made requesting a renewal of the exemption; they are presented here in alphabetical order of the applicants’ names: · Bourns Inc.,685 an electronic component manufacturer, purchases different components manufactured from leaded copper alloys such as bushings, terminals, shafts, pins, backup strips, terminal strips, switch elements/ terminals, rivets. Bourns Inc.686 explains that leaded copper alloys can be precisely processed in fast screw machines and provide corrosion resistance. · Dunkermotoren GmbH687 request the exemption for gear wheels and motor bushes for different motor applications. The leaded copper alloys allow a long lifetime of the machining tools and of the finished gear box application due to the slide functionality of lead. According to Dunkermotoren,688 their applications could be manufactured with leaded copper alloys with a lead content of < 1%. Dunkermotoren689 added that the lower threshold is only applicable to electrical drive technology and that their “execution cannot be transferred to other industries”.

684 CEN EN 12164 and 12165 685 Bourns (2015a), Bourns, Inc. (2015a), Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 19.01.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Bourns/6c_Exe mption_extension_ap_6c.pdf 686 Bourns (2015b), Bourns, Inc. (2015b), Answers to Clarification Questions, submitted 29.08.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Bourns/201508 11_Bourns_Ex_6c_1st_round_of_Clarification-Questions.pdf 687 Dunkermotoren (2014), Dunkermotoren GmbH (2014), Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 15.12.2014, English version available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Dunkermotoren /151008_Anmerkungen_Ausnahmeantrag_Dunkermotoren_6c_Messing_english.pdf 688 Op. cit. Dunkermotoren (2014) 689 Dunkermotoren (2015), Dunkermotoren GmbH (2015), Additional Information to the Application, submitted 08.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Dunkermotoren /Additional_information_to_our_application_6c___Dunkermotoren.pdf

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 339

· Framo Morat GmbH & Co. KG690 produces the “soft partner of worm gears” from leaded copper alloys for good machinability and because it supports the dry-running of the gear parts.691 According to Framo Morat the copper alloy CuZn37Mn3Al2PbSi that has been tested within the company over a long time period for its mechanical properties. Especially the “load-carrying capacity”, is an essential manufacturing parameter, experience with which is based on “decades of internal testing and recording”. Framo Morat sells “more than a million worm gears to more than 275 customers all around the world placed in all branches.” Therefore Framo Morat cannot specify all the applications where the worm gears are used in. · LightingEurope (LEU)692 requests the exemption for contact-pins of various fluorescent lamps and starters for fluorescent lamps, GU10 (a type of lamp fixture) reflector lamps and high intensity discharge (HID) R-mini lamps. LEU states that the presence of lead results in a higher ductility of the copper- alloy pins. · PHOENIX Contact GmbH&Co. KG and HARTING KGaA,693 both component manufacturers of connectors, device connection technology and network components, switchgears, fieldbus components etc. requested the exemption on behalf of a number of organisations.694 They do not apply for their own

690 Framo Morat (2014), Framo Morat GmbH & Co. KG (2014), Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 10.12.2014, English version available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Framo/Ex_6c_F ramo_Morat_2015-08-13_RoHS_Exemption_Request_fkn_Public.pdf 691 Framo Morat (2015), Framo Morat GmbH & Co. KG (2015), Answers to Clarification Questions, submitted 18.08.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Framo/2015081 8_Ex_6c_FramoMorat_1st_round_of_Clarification-Questions_fkn.pdf 692 LEU (2015a), LightingEurope (2015a), Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 16.01.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/ Exemption_6_c_/Lighting_Europe/6c_LE_RoHS_Exemption_Req_Final.pdf 693 Phoenix Contact and Harting (2015a), PHOENIX Contact GmbH&Co. KG and HARTING KGaA (2015a), Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 16.01.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Phoenix/6c_Ro HS_Exemption_6c_Renewal_Dossier_16_JAN_2015.pdf 694 The following 26 organizations supported the request (in alphabetical order): American Chamber of Commerce to the EU (AmChamEU), Avago Technologies Limited, Communications and Information network Association of Japan (CIAJ), DIGITALEUROPE, European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers (CECED), European Coordination Committee of the Radiological, Electromedical and Healthcare IT Industry (COCIR), European Copper Institute (ECI), European Garden Machinery Industry Federation (EGMF), European Partnership for Energy and the Environment (EPEE), European Passive Components Industry Association (EPCIA), European Power Tool Association (EPTA), European Semiconductor Industry Association (ESIA), Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), IPC-Association Connecting Electronics Industries, Japan Business Council in Europe (JBCE), Japan Business Machine and Information System Industries Association (JBMIA), Japan Electrical Manufacturers ́ Association (JEMA), Japan Electronics and Information Technology Industries Association (JEITA), Knowles, LIGHTINGEUROPE, Littelfuse, Orgalime, the European Engineering Industries Association, SPECTARIS, TechAmerica Europe

340

specific applications but rather provide a generic review of the uses of leaded copper alloys. It is not always comprehensible whether e.g. publically funded research or research conducted by the automotive industry is cited or whether own research is presented by Phoenix Contact and Harting. Phoenix Contact and Harting indicate contact spring legs, crimp contacts, gear pinions and bearings and bushings as applications of leaded copper alloys. · Sensata Technologies695 purchases connectors, bushings, terminals, screws, hex nuts, washers, rivets for their following applications: thermal motor protectors, thermal circuit breakers, hydraulic magnetic circuit breakers. Five out of six applicants696 request a renewal of the exemption with the current wording: “Copper alloy containing up to 4% lead by weight” A further application submitted did not fulfil the minimum requirements of applications for exemptions stipulated in Annex V of the Directive and was not evaluated as such. As for the history of the exemption, it has to be noted that since the RoHS 1 Directive was published in 2002, Ex. 6 has covered lead as an alloying element in steels, aluminium and copper.697 Following the last revision on 2009698, Ex. 6 was split into three exemptions 6a, 6b and 6c for each alloy respectively. There is a corresponding exemption in the end-of-life vehicles Directive 2000/53/EC (ELV, listed in Annex II, as Exemption 3) with the same wording “Copper alloy containing up to 4% lead by weight”. It was reviewed in 2015 by Oeko-Institut; the evaluation report has yet to be published. Where relevant within this chapter, it is referred to as the ELV revision.

(TAE), WirtschaftsVereinigung Metalle (WVM), Zentralverband Elektrotechnik-und Elektronikindustrie e. V. (ZVEI). 695 Sensata (2015a), Sensata Technologies Holland B.V. (2015a), Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 15.01.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_b_/Sensata/6a_6b _6c_RoHS-Exemptions_Application-Format_Ex_6a_b_c_Pb_in_St_Al_Cu.pdf Sensata (2015b), Sensata Technologies Holland B.V. (2015b), Answers to Clarification Questions, submitted 20.08.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Sensata/Ex_6a6 b6c_Sensata_Questions_response_20150820.pdf 696 Dunkermotoren (2014) requested a lower threshold however stated later that this would be only applicable to their specific application (Dunkermotoren 2015) 697 The wording of exemption 6 was as follows: “Lead as an alloying element in steel containing up to 0,35% lead by weight, aluminium containing up to 0,4% lead by weight and as a copper alloy containing up to 4% lead by weight”; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32002L0095&from=EN 698 Gensch et al. (2009), Carl-Otto Gensch, Oeko-Institut e. V., et al. 20 February 2009, Adaptation to scientific and technical progress under Directive 2002/95/EC: Final Report. With the assistance of Stéphanie Zangl, Rita Groß, Anna Weber, Oeko-Institut e. V. and Otmar Deubzer, Fraunhofer IZM. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_reportl_rohs1_en.pdf

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 341

20.1.1 Amount of Lead Used under the Exemption Phoenix Contact and Harting699 state that it is “unfortunately not possible to identify exhaustively the components and EEE that use leaded copper alloys. As consequence the amount of lead per year cannot be calculated. An estimation based on the data of only two companies would not reflect the situation of the EEE industry.” When asked to provide an estimation, Phoenix Contact and Harting stated the following: “Ca. 2500 tpa lead based on a use amount of leaded alloys in EEE of 100,000 tpa with 2.5% lead threshold is assumed. Taken the recycling rate of more than 90% for these alloys 250 tpa new lead are needed for the market.” The other applicants (in alphabetical order) provided the following amounts: · Dunkermotoren700 estimates that it places 1.7 t of lead per annum on the market. · Framo Morat701 estimates the amount of lead, which was placed on the market in 2014, at about 700kg. · LightingEurope702 calculates a total amount of approximately 38 ton of lead per year but stated that this amount will gradually decrease in the coming years because LED lamps have a longer life-time compared to conventional lamps. · Sensata703 estimates the amount of lead in lead-containing copper alloys used in Sensata products placed on the EU market at 500kg. Bourns704 provides a list that indicates the amount of Pb in its finished units. However, Bourns further states that it is not able to calculate the amount of lead because Bourns’ parts are not finished parts. They are used in the assembly of other goods in the various EEE categories thus Bourns cannot determine the final use of their parts: “Once our parts are sold either directly or through distribution, we do not have information on how all parts are used.” In the last revision of this exemption the following estimate was made: “The average annual consumption of leaded brass in the EU is approximately 1,500,000 t. Figures on the share in the electronic sector have not been provided by the copper industry. However, it is estimated that yearly quantities in ICT equipment are ten tonnes at

699 Phoenix Contact and Harting (2015b), PHOENIX Contact GmbH&Co. KG and HARTING KGaA (2015b), Answers to Clarification Questions, submitted 14.09.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Ex_6c_Phoenix_ Harting_Answers_1st_round_clarifying_questions_14.09.2015.pdf 700 Op. cit. Dunkermotoren (2015a) 701 Op. cit. Framo Morat (2015) 702 Op. cit. LEU (2015a) 703 Op. cit. Sensata (2015b) 704 Op. cit. Bourns (2015b)

342

maximum.” Taking into account the amounts of lead indicated by LEU, this can be understood to have been heavily underestimated.

20.2 Description of Requested Exemption According to Phoenix Contact and Harting,705 it is not possible to exhaustively identify the components and EEE that use leaded copper alloys. Phoenix Contact and Harting706 explain that this is due to a complex structure of the supply chain where material specifications are not recorded and manufacturers of components/parts supply their products to different industries: “In electrical and electronic industry there is no common database on the chemical composition of single parts. In addition the diversity of products is very high as RoHS covers diverse types of EEE and their components. These components are used in different industries with different requirements, organisations and structures. The consequence of this situation is that it is not possible to provide a list of components or equipment that contains leaded copper alloys.” From the applications of single companies, gears as mechanically moving components can be differentiated from other applications: For the manufacturing of the gear parts, the applicants Dunkermotoren and Framo Morat mention that a leaded copper alloy (CuZn37Mn3Al2PbSi) is used (Framo Morat) or can exclusively be used (Dunkermotoren) that contains a lead of < 1% by weight. Other components mentioned by the applicants are a variety of small parts that partly have electrical/conductive functions, such as the contact-pins LEU specified in its renewal request. Bourns707 indicate the following applications containing the following components of leaded copper alloys: Brass pins, shafts, bushings, brass backup strips, terminals, terminal strip, switch element/terminal. Sensata708 indicate very similar components to be made from leaded copper alloys: bushings, terminals, screws, hex nuts, washers, rivets. Phoenix Contact and Harting709 mention some examples of components made from leaded copper alloys: spring contacts, crimp contacts and gears as an example of mechanical connecting parts. As for the applications related to the different components, the applicants explain the following:

705 Op. cit. Phoenix Contact and Harting (2015b) 706 Op. cit. Phoenix Contact and Harting (2015b) 707 Op. cit. Bourns (2015a) 708 Op. cit. Sensata (2015b) 709 Op. cit. Phoenix Contact and Harting (2015a)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 343

· Bourns710 uses the above mentioned components in counting dials, encoders, panel controls, precision potentiometers, rotary sensors and trimming potentiometers. Bourns further state: “With the wide use of applications for electronic components, subassemblies containing electronic components and finished products containing electronic components, it is not possible for Bourns to determine the final use in the various EEE categories. Some, such as EEE categories 1-9 are highly likely along with 11. Once our parts are sold either directly or through distribution, we do not have information on how all parts are used. Bourns’ parts are not finished parts but used in the assembly of other goods such as cell phones and computers to name a few. Bourns cannot determine where the global parts that claim exemption 6c are used and the final destination of that finished product. Further, the end products that use these parts may not be under the RoHS scope. There may be other applications using this exemption that are out of the scope of Bourns customer base. There are just too many unknowns to provide accurate information.” · According to Dunkermotoren,711 the gear parts can be used in various EEE such as “slicers, retail scales, printers, woodworking machines, under water scooter, rehabilitation machines, dialysis machines, medial pumps, operating tables, magnetic resonance tomography, cash machines, automatic doors and automatic sun protection as well as in IT and telecommunication equipment, electrical and electronic toys, leisure and sports equipment, medical devices, automatic dispensers and other EEE not covered by any of the categories above.” · Framo Morat712 explains that “there are two possibilities to order a worm gear set. First there are catalogue sets which can be ordered right away and are in stock. The other opportunity is to order customized worm gears which are designed in a specific way for every customer himself. Considering the possibility of catalogue sets it is difficult to trace the final application, in which Framo worm gears can be found. One of the nameable examples is definitely the sector of geared motors and their affiliated surroundings.” · Lighting Europe713 explains that the pins are used in various lamps and starters for lamps as already mentioned above. · Sensata714 describes that their sensor and control products are used in the following EEE: thermal motor protectors, thermal circuit breakers, hydraulic magnetic circuit breakers.

710 Op. cit. Bourns (2015b) 711 Op. cit. Dunkermotoren (2014) 712 Op. cit. Framo Morat (2014) 713 Op. cit. LEU (2015a) 714 Op. cit. Sensata (2015b)

344

20.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption The justifications of the applicants for their specific components are summarized in the following Table 20-1. The applicants generally refer to a favourable machinability of leaded copper alloys, which is not substantiated further. In most cases the applicants also claim that the lead in the finished product has an additional function in the finished product. These functions are e.g. conductivity, corrosion resistance, dry-running performance or wear resistance. Sensata715 generally claims that “because leaded copper alloys are not cheap, nor light, these materials will only be selected in product designs when needed under harsh mechanical and environmental conditions from the application and manufacturing point of view. Mostly in small parts that require smooth surfaces and narrow tolerances alike sliding elements, mechanical contacting elements and electrical applications.”

715 Op. cit. Sensata (2015b)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 345

Table 20 -1: Summary of the justification for exemption Part of Leaded Copper Function of Lead in the Function of Lead in the Applicant Aspects of Machinability Additional aspects Alloy Manufacturing of Product Finished Product Calculation of load-carrying capacity of leaded copper Dry-running performance -> Framo Excellent mechanical alloy are based on decades Worm gear n.s. Increases of product Morat properties of internal testing and lifetime and safety recording,* Economical characteristics Gear parts, Reduction of sliding Dunker- Higher lifetime of tools, Motor parts, typically n.s. properties of gear parts in n.s. motoren Lower process time. bushes the gear box

Lubrication and chip control in order to run on Brass pins, shafts, bushings, Competitive cost, automatic screw machines, Brass forms a tin protective Brass backup strips, Availability of material in Bourns Lead reduces heat n.s. patina, Terminals, terminal strip, small bar sizes to reduce generation during screw Mechanical strength Switch element waste machine process, Less wear on tooling

Conductivity, Ductility to provide a Corrosion resistance, Ongoing changes in the Contact-pins in different Reference made to Phoenix reliable connection of lead Ductility -> Integrity over lighting industry -> LEU forms Contact and Harting wire from the lamp to the lifetime reluctance of suppliers to contact-pin -> safety issue Elasticity, investments Tensile strength Restricted use of leaded Connectors, bushings, copper alloy because Sensata terminals, screws, hex nuts, n.s. n.s. n.s. material not cheap and not washers, rivets light

346

Part of Leaded Copper Function of Lead in the Function of Lead in the Applicant Aspects of Machinability Additional aspects Alloy Manufacturing of Product Finished Product Corrosion resistance, Low relaxation behaviour -> Spring contacts n.s. maintenance of contact Phoenix forces Contact Chip breaker, Corrosion resistance, and Internal lubricant Crimp contacts n.s. Ductility -> prevention of Harting cracks. Mechanical connecting Corrosion resistance, n.s. parts such as e.g. gears Wear resistance

*: Framo Morat716 explains on the load carrying capacity the following “The calculation of load-carrying capacity is an essential part of the designing of a drive including worm gears. To ensure a realistic computation several material properties have to be known. These properties relating to CuZn37Mn3Al2PbSi cannot be found in common literature like “Niemann/Winter - Maschinenelemente 3” or “Dubbel -Taschenbuch für den Maschinenbau”. Therefore the used properties are based on decades of internal testing and recording. Framo is not able to perform any realistic and scientific proved calculation of load -carrying capacity, if CuZn37Mn3Al2PbSi will not be available for use anymore.” Source: Bourns (2015b), LEU (2015b)717, Phoenix Contact and Harting (2015a), Sensata (2015b)

716 Op. cit. Framo Morat (2014) 717 Op. cit. LEU (2015b), LightingEurope (2015b), Answers to Clarification Questions, submitted 28.08.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Lighting_Europe/Ex_6c_LightingEurope1st_round_Clarification_LE_Ans wers_20150828.pdf

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 347

20.3.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances Bourns and Sensata both purchase components from suppliers, however, the efforts to stimulate the supply chain towards the development of possible alternatives to lead- containing copper alloys differs. Sensata718 mostly leaves the responsibility on the component manufacturer and does not specify the efforts taken with “existing materials, none of which has proven to be a suitable replacement”. On the other hand, Bourns719 indicates that they cooperate with their suppliers to explore possible solutions and they experiment with possible alternatives. Concerning alternatives tested and the respective problems, Bourns mentions the following alternatives (though not specifying the tests any further) that all “have a higher raw material cost, a slower machining rate which reduces our capacity and shortens tool life”: · “Aluminium – slow machining; · Zinc die cast – seal integrity issues; · Nickel silver – required slowing screw machine by 50%; material finish not as good as brass.” Bourns720 also mentions to have evaluated Ecobrass, but that it is not available in the required bar diameter size and was therefore not tested. Dunkermotoren state that they have tested “an alternative material. But the tests were negative. Now we restart the material search.” Framo Morat721 also indicates to have tested “for example ECOBRASS or other lead-free (0.1%) materials, were not satisfying. The substitutes did not reach the mechanical properties of the used one.” Framo Morat does not further specify the tested lead-free material. LightingEurope722 state that there are basically contact-pins made of lead-free alloys already available on the market by one supplier, but that the lighting industry has no experience with lead-free contact material: “There is no evidence that lead-free materials cannot be used, but given the long life -time of lamps in combination with the mass scale application it also cannot be proven that lead-free contacts have the same performance regarding safety and reliability under all application conditions (current density, temperature, humidity etc.).” LEU also raises the concern that the current supply would not be able to satisfy the present demand of the market. LEU does not further specify the lead-free copper alloy.

718 Op. cit. Sensata (2015b): “The Sensata supply chain for lead-containing copper alloys comprises companies whose expertise is in stamping and screw-machining. Neither Sensata nor the Sensata supply chain have the expertise or resources to develop alternatives to lead-containing copper alloys.” 719 Op. cit. Bourns (2015b) 720 Op. cit. Bourns (2015b) 721 Op. cit. Framo Morat (2014) 722 Op. cit. LEU (2015b)

348

Phoenix Contact and Harting723 show some machining examples with substitutes. It is not always comprehensible whether e.g. publically funded research by RWTH Aachen or research conducted by the automotive industry is cited or whether own research is presented by Phoenix Contact and Harting; therefore the information submitted by Phoenix and Harting is rather seen as a generic review of the current EU industry opinion: · A drilling test with CuZn42, a lead-free copper alloy with a higher zinc content, and the silicon-containing CuZn21Si3P resulted in only 3% of the required life of the drill compared to the leaded copper alloy CuZn39Pb3; the lead-free alloys also needed significantly higher cutting forces in the case of the lead-free alloys. · Crimp contact made from the alloy CuZn42 showed continuous cracks during the crimping process, which are not allowed for a mechanically resistant and permanently safe connection: A crack permits the penetration of any corrosive substances. As a consequence the resistance increases and the contact point is heated up. Thus the risk of fire or unreliability exists. Besides, if a crack reduces the required mechanical pressure exerted on the cable, the pull-out force is below the required value as given in standards. The pulled out cable can apply power to touchable parts and thus a hazard for people is the potential consequence. Also, due to the broken connection, equipment (for example a motor) would fail. · A gear pinion made with the lead-free copper alloy CuZn31Mn2Si1Al1 mechanically connected to a gear pinion made from plastic as part of a gear box showed a higher wear, as compared to a gear wheel made from CuZn39Pb3; the corresponding plastic pinions showed a much greater wear with the lead-free copper alloys pinion, which could cause a premature failure. Phoenix Contact and Harting724 estimate that a connector pin as a simple component requires about 1000 labour hours for safety testing.

20.3.2 Possible Alternatives for Eliminating RoHS Substances Two applicants mention the possibilities to use different materials: · Bourns725 generally mentions that a possible alternative would be stainless steel that has a higher cost of machining. Machinability ratings indicate that stainless steel is 40-50% as efficient as brass because stainless steel as a poor conductor of heat compared to brass results in elevated temperatures during machining operations reducing the life of tools. Besides, Bourns mentions

723 Op. cit. Phoenix Contact and Harting (2015a) 724 Op. cit. Phoenix Contact and Harting (2015a) 725 Op. cit. Bourns (2015a)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 349

that “rod sizes for screw machines are readily available in 360 brass; not available in stainless without more scrap/waste.” · Framo Morat726 mention that “in the early 2010s”, it explored “new and high developed coatings like DLC or a particular shaped chrome layer. The first attempts had shown that there is a chance of potential in this technology to substitute CuZn37Mn3Al2PbSi. The continuation of this research would involve the generating of a non -assessable amount of costs and human resources. Anyway there are still future projects planned, which are connected to this technology.”

20.3.3 Environmental Arguments Phoenix and Harting727 state that “leaded brass is to nearly 100% made from recycled material. Without exemption 6c copper alloys for electric and electronic equipment could not, as it is common today, easily be made from recycled copper alloys. Thus the urban stock which is one of the most important sources for copper in Europe could not be used as it is possible today.” Within this context, the following environmental arguments are also provided by the applicants: · Framo Morat728 explains that waste material from manufacturing is collected and stored in order for waste coolant to naturally drip from the material; then a specialized recycling company picks up the cuttings and centrifuges the last leftovers to remove remaining coolant. These dry cuttings are then sent to the material supplier who turns them back into new and usable work pieces. Framo Morat emphasises the certified and long -term reliable partnership with the material supplier. · LightingEurope729 mentions that the waste stream of fluorescent lamps, responsible for about 70% of the total amount of lead in contact pins of lamps, has a specified take back system (see Section 4.3.3.3 in Lamp general chapter); other lamps that are sold in the consumer channel (mainly GU10 lamps) will not be recycled and are handled as normal waste; LEU estimates that about 50% of the TL-and CFLni lamps have been recycled in 2014 which suggests that 13.5 tons out of the 38 tons of lead were recycled via WEEE (i.e. accounting the 50% recycling rate with the 70% fluorescent lamps for which take back systems exist).

726 Op. cit. Framo Morat (2014) 727 Op. cit. Phoenix and Harting (2015a) 728 Op. cit. Framo Morat (2014) 729 Op. cit. LEU (2015a)

350

20.3.4 Socio-economic Impact of Substitution Some applicants mention possible costs related to substitution, but in a general way, without further substantiating and quantifying possible impacts: · Bourns730 claims an increase in direct production costs, however without providing further evidence. · Framo Morat731 mentions the profitability of the used copper alloy concerning the costs and lifetime of tools whereas the continuation of the research on substitutes “would involve the generating of a non-assessable amount of costs and human resources.” · LightingEurope732 claims an increase in direct production costs and in fixed costs related to substitution: “Investments are necessary to switch-over from lead-containing to lead-free contact pins. Next to that the reject level (waste material) will be higher than with lead-containing copper alloy. There are no estimations on the total sum.”

20.3.5 Road Map to Substitution None of the applicants provide a road map for substitution.

20.4 Stakeholder Contributions Twelve contributions to exemption 6c have been submitted during the stakeholder consultation. The contributions are presented in order of submission and are shortly summarized: · Mitsubishi Shindoh Co. Ltd.733 proposes Ecobrass as a lead-free copper alloy alternative, which has high strength, excellent machinability, exceptional wear resistance, good creep properties and superior corrosion resistance, as a replacement material for free-cutting brass rod CuZn38Pb3 suggesting that there is no difference in productivity from leaded brass. Mitsubishi Shindoh Co. Ltd.734 lists as examples of Ecobrass applications electrical and electronic component gears, terminals, medical devices and valves for electrical water heaters. The input of Mitsubishi Shindoh Co. Ltd. is further presented in section 20.5.2.

730 Op. cit. Bourns (2015a) 731 Op. cit. Framo Morat (2014) 732 Op. cit. LEU (2015a) 733 Mitsubishi (2015), Contribution by Mitsubishi Shindoh Co. Ltd., submitted 07.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Exemption_6c_ _2015-10-mitsubishi-shindoh-rohs.pdf 734 Mitsubishi (2015), Contribution by Mitsubishi Shindoh Co. Ltd., submitted 07.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Exemption_6c_ _2015-10-mitsubishi-shindoh-rohs.pdf

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 351

· ODU GmbH & Co. KG,735 a leading international manufacturer of connection systems, supports the renewal request by Phoenix Contact and Harting. ODU GmbH & Co. KG736 state that 95 % of their products would be affected if the exemption were not renewed and that they have made “serious efforts in direct cooperation with our raw material suppliers, until now, no material could be found that would even rudimentarily be suitable and bearable as a substitute. Of course, we are continuing our efforts in this area, but desperately need the additional time the extension would bring.” · GENBAND737 provides telecommunications equipment to many of the telecommunications companies in Europe and worldwide and supports the renewal of exemption 6c. GENBAND738 points out that it purchases electrical components and products from other OEM manufacturers and therefore is not able comment directly on the technical aspects of material selection. GENBAND lists the following applications that need the use of leaded copper alloys: Connectors, power supplies, fans, heatsinks, electrical switches, potentiometers, EMI gaskets. GENBAND739 also corrected the mistake in the consultation questionnaire, which correctly should say “the lower relaxation behaviour achieved with leaded copper alloys maintains the contact forces in spring contacts”, and points out the relation to fire risk if the contact fails: “The fire risk is created as the contact metal relaxes, causing the contact force to drop, increasing the contact resistance, increasing the heat in the connector, leading to melting and potentially fire.” · The Robert Bosch GmbH740 generally supports the applicants without providing further information. · JBCE741 – Japan Business Council in Europe in a.i.b.l. states that they understand that EEE of category 8 and 9 are out of scope of this review. The JBCE

735 ODU (2015), Contribution by ODU GmbH & Co. KG, submitted 12.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Stakeholder_Co nsultation_on_RoHS_Exemption_6c.pdf 736 ODU (2015), Contribution by ODU GmbH & Co. KG, submitted 12.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Stakeholder_Co nsultation_on_RoHS_Exemption_6c.pdf 737 GENBAND (2015), Contribution by GENBAND, submitted 14.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/EX_6c_GENBAN D_STAKEHOLDER_CONTRIBUTION.pdf 738 Op. cit. GENBAND (2015) 739 Op. cit. GENBAND (2015) 740 Robert Bosch GmbH (2015), Contribution by Robert Bosch GmbH, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Bosch- Stakeholder-contribution-Exemption-request-6c.pdf 741 JBCE (2015), Contribution by JBCE – Japan Business Council in Europe in a.i.b.l, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Comment_on_p ublic_cousulation_of_Exemption_request_2015-2_6_c__.pdf

352

understands that “the exemption 6(c) in annex III can be applied to category 8&9 products for seven years from identified date when entry into force for each products, at the earliest July 2021.” · CETEHOR, the technical department of the Comite Franceclat (French Watch, Clock, Jewellery, Silverware & Tableware Centre)742 explains that watch movements are 80 % made of leaded copper alloys (CuZn39Pb3). CETEHOR lists the following “extremely small parts” to be made of leaded copper alloys: plates, bridges, cogs, gears, screws, nuts, pins, pivots; their dimensional conformity have tolerances of 5 to 10 μm. CETEHOR743 stated that these tight dimensional requirements are not met by lead-free copper alloys. CETEHOR744 also claims that lead-free alternatives create a greater tool wear that needs a more frequent sharpening and higher consumption rates of tools and longer machining cycles required, which all cause financial problems. CETEHOR745 estimated a quantity of lead of 120 kg per year based on the amount of 8 g of brass per watch for movement parts and the annual French production of quartz watches of 0.5 million. · ELTECNO,746 a producer of low-voltage switchgear and control gear assemblies, supports the renewal of the exemption with a content of lead in copper of 4%. ELTECNO uses leaded copper alloy for the terminals for the protective conductors and sometimes for the neutral conductors. ELTCNO747 mentions the favourable machining properties but also corrosion resistance as performance requirement of leaded copper alloys. ELTECNO748 indicates the following amounts of leaded copper alloys with a lead content of 3.3% used: 1.5 tpa, resulting in 47 kg lead per year. · HARTING KGaA749 discussed in its contribution the information provided by Dunkermotoren and Framo Morat that both indicate the use of a leaded copper alloy with a lead content of <1%. Harting KGgA stresses that both have used these alloys before and that their applications are very specific ones.

742 CETEHOR (2015), Contribution by Comite Franceclat (French Watch, Clock, Jewellery, Silverware & Tableware Centre), CETEHOR, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Ex_6.c_Comite_ Franceclat_Cetehor_20151012.pdf 743 Op. cit. CETEHOR (2015) 744 Op. cit. CETEHOR (2015) 745 Op. cit. CETEHOR (2015) 746 ELTECNO (2015), Contribution with picture by ELTECNO, submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Ex_6c_ELTECNO _Answers_20151016.pdf 747 Op. cit. ELTECNO (2015) 748 Op. cit. ELTECNO (2015) 749 HARTING al. (2015a), Contribution by HARTING KGaA et al., submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Ex_6c_HARTING _KGaA__stakeholder_consultation_2015-10-16.pdf

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 353

As for properties of lead, HARTING KGgA et al.750 adds the following: “electrical conductivity, thermal conductivity, cold deforming behaviour, resistance welding, galvanizing ability, soldering at higher temperatures than 450 °C, relaxation behaviour, crimp ability, spring behaviour, high-speed stamping, physical properties (melting point, coefficient of thermal expansion, etc.), fabrication process properties (hot forming, brazing, etc.), etc.” HARTING KGgA et al.751 stresses that these properties as well as their interrelations “cannot be seen as independent from the application”. · HARTING KGaA752 submitted a response to the contribution of Mitsubishi Shindoh; this input is discussed in section 20.5.2. · KEMI Kemikalieinspektionen, the Swedish Chemicals Agency753, interprets Article 5 in the RoHS Directive in the way that both the material or component and the specific applications need to be defined in the wording formulation of an exemption. Thus, “it is no longer legally possible to decide on an exemption for lead in copper alloys whatever the use is.” KEMI754 therefore proposes the split into a number of more specific exemptions related to applications where it has been verified that feasible alternatives are currently not available. KEMI755 extracted the specific applications that were mentioned by the different applicants, further discussed in section 20.5.5. · PennEngineering,756 a designer and manufacturer of specialty fasteners, supports the renewal request, however states that it agrees with a lower threshold of 2.5% than the current 4.0 % because they have found “353 to be an acceptable alternative to 360”. PennEngineering757 explains that leaded brass offers the advantages in their machining environment (multi-spindle automatic screw machines or single spindle CNC lathes) of significantly longer tool life leading to higher efficiency (less downtime), better surface finish, significantly higher surface speed and

750 Op. cit. HARTING et al. (2015a) 751 Op. cit. HARTING et al. (2015a) 752 HARTING et al. (2015b), Contribution by HARTING KGaA et al. as a response to the contribution of Mitsubishi Shindoh, submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Ex_6c_HARTING _KGaA_response_Mitsubishi_Shindoh_2015-10-16.pdf 753 KEMI (2015),Contribution by KEMI Kemikalieinspektionen, Swedish Chemicals Agency, submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Ex_6c_KEMI_An swer_to_SC_RoHS_20151016_Lead_in_copper.pdf 754 Op. cit. KEMI (2015) 755 Op. cit. KEMI (2015) 756 PennEngineering (2015), Contribution by PennEngineering, Danboro, PA, USA, submitted 19.10.2015; available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Ex_6c_PennEngi neering_Consultation_Questionnaire_PE_AS_20151016.pdf 757 Op. cit. PennEngineering (2015)

354

significantly higher feed rate. PennEngineering stated that they have experimented with lead-free Ecobrass and found it to machine significantly worse than 353 leaded brass, however do not provide further evidence. PennEngineering758 states that they currently use 190.5 t (“420,000 lb”) of the two different leaded copper alloys (353 and 360) per year globally; the amount of the contained lead is calculated at 3.86 tpa (“8,500 lb”). PennEngineering estimated that approximately 25% of its sales of leaded product go to EEE in the EU. · The Test & Measurement Coalition759 submitted a general contribution on Category 9 Industrial monitoring and control instruments, similar in nature to the contribution made by the JBCE.

20.5 Critical Review

20.5.1 REACH Compliance - Relation to the REACH Regulation Appendix A.1.0 of this report lists Entry 30 in Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation, stipulating that lead and its compounds shall not be placed on the market, or used, as substances, constituents of other substances, or in mixtures for supply to the general public. A prerequisite to granting the requested exemption would therefore be to establish whether the intended use of lead in this exemption request might weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by the REACH regulation. In the consultants’ understanding, the restriction for substances under Entry 30 of Annex XVII does not apply to the use of lead in this application as lead is used as an alloying element. Copper alloys are used to produce various components and articles. In the consultants’ point of view this is not a supply of a lead as a substance, mixture or constituent of other mixtures to the general public. Pb is part of an article and as such, Entry 30 of Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation would not apply. Appendix A.1.0 of this report lists Entry 63 in Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation, stipulating that lead and its compounds shall not be placed on the market or used in articles supplied to the general public, if the concentration of lead (expressed as metal) in those articles or accessible parts thereof is equal to or greater than 0,05 % by weight, and those articles or accessible parts thereof may, during normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use, be placed in the mouth by children.760 Entry 63 however further specifies this restriction not to be applicable for articles within the scope of the RoHS Directive 2011/65/EU.

758 Op. cit. PennEngineering (2015) 759 Test & Measurement Coalition (2015), Contribution by Test & Measurement Coalition, submitted 19 October 2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_1_a- e_/General_Contribution_Test___Measurement_Coalition_package_9_exemptions_20151016.pdf 760 Other restrictions of entry 63 cover e.g. jewellery and are thus not applicable here.

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 355

No other entries, relevant for the use of lead in the requested exemption could be identified in Annex XIV and Annex XVII (status January 2016). Based on the current status of Annexes XIV and XVII of the REACH Regulation, the requested exemption would not weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by the REACH Regulation. An exemption could therefore be granted if other criteria of Art. 5(1)(a) apply.

20.5.2 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution Mitsubishi Shindoh Co. Ltd.761 submitted a contribution to the consultation pointing out the lead-free copper alloy Ecobrass as a substitute material for many components, especially where high electrical conductivity is not critical although it is not possible for Ecobrass to replace all leaded copper alloys. According to Mitsubishi,762 Ecobrass is used mostly as replacement material for free-cutting brass rod CuZn38Pb3 suggesting that there is no difference in productivity from leaded brass. Durability and corrosion resistance in various environments such as in soil or hot-humid conditions have also been validated. As for examples of Ecobrass’ applications for electrical and electronic components, Mitsubishi763 list gears, terminals, medical devices, and valves for electrical water heaters. Mitsubishi764 also argue that Ecobrass has been adopted for the sliding component of vehicle air conditioner replacing C36000 and that the machining example of vehicle components is a model case for substituting small electrical and electronic components. Besides, Mitsubishi765 argues that components used in large electrical home appliances are similar to valves and fittings used in drinking water fixtures and components. For the suitability in electrical applications where the components require conductivity, which is understood to be the case for e.g. contact pins (applied for by LightingEurope), crimp contacts (mentioned by Phoenix Contact and Harting) or switch gears (mentioned by ELTECNO) or terminals (mentioned by Bourns), Mitsubishi states that “Ecobrass can replace leaded-brass for high conductivity applications by plating with such materials as Ag or Sn, which is applicable for many components.” E.g. Mitsubishi766 mentions terminals to be manufactured from Ecobrass. Electrical conductivity is provided by silver plating that is applied after the machining process. According to Mitsubishi,767 Ecobrass has been selected for terminals since 2005 and the total sales volume has reached 35

761 Op. cit. Mitsubishi (2015) 762 Op. cit. Mitsubishi (2015) 763 Op. cit. Mitsubishi (2015) 764 Op. cit. Mitsubishi (2015) 765 Op. cit. Mitsubishi (2015) 766 Mitsubishi (2016), Mitsubishi Shindoh Co. Ltd. (2016), Answers to Clarification Questions, submitted 15.01.2016. 767 Op. cit. Mitsubishi (2016)

356

tones. Mitsubishi768 indicates that the sizes of material in use are φ5, 7 and 9 mm and continues to explain that “assuming the size of material is φ7×40 mm, more than 2,500,000 products have been manufactured.” The following figure shows a picture of the Ecobrass terminal. Figure 20 -1: Terminals made of ecobrass

Source: Mitsubishi (2016)

For applications where high conductivity is required, Mitsubishi recommends other lead- free copper alloys such as C18625, a high copper alloy that has a high electrical conductivity with strength equal to or exceeding leaded brass. On Ecobrass, the applicants and the contributing stakeholder provided the following objections: · Bourns769 explains that in January 2001, Ecobrass was evaluated for machining capability and that the plant had difficulty in machining this material at that time. As a recent problem, Bourns stated that Ecobrass is not available in small diameter bars: “Some trimming potentiometers require a diameter size of 0.075. Using a 0.250” would mean 91% waste if machined down to 0.075.” · GENBAND states “The Mitsubishi –Shindoh in their contribution indicate that electrical and thermal conductivity are affected by the lead content. This makes their material not suitable for electrical conductors.” · Framo Morat770 explains that “first tests with possible substitutes, for example Ecobrass or other lead-free (<0.1%) materials, were not satisfying. The substitutes did not reach the mechanical properties of the used one.” · PennEngineering “have experimented with lead-free Ecobrass and found it to machine significantly worse than 353 leaded brass.” From the objections above it is apparent that the machining processes cannot be equally run. This problem was also discussed during the ELV revision of the corresponding exemption, wherein the consultants could follow that Ecobrass may suffer technical drawbacks that still delay their implementation, e.g. in the case of Ecobrass, for

768 Op. cit. Mitsubishi (2016) 769 Op. cit. Bourns (2015a) 770 Op. cit. Framo Morat (2014)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 357

micromachining in automated series production. During the ELV revision Mitsubishi771 submitted a drilling report that used a different drilling bit (carbide compared to high speed steel) that suggests how machining processes could be adapted to process Ecobrass. These adaptations are important in cases where machining knowledge on these alloys or usability of required equipment for these alloys is a key requirement for successful application. The automotive industry argued during the ELV revision that machining and processing of alternative alloys is in a very basic research stage because public funded research on fundamental parameters is still on-going in the field of machining. Welter772 stated in a report compiled on behalf of the automotive industry that there is little know-how among the subcontractors specialized in micromachining and their tool suppliers and machining companies: “The subcontractors specialised in the field of micro-machining are in general small or medium size companies. Usually they do not have the competences and resources to do the development needed for low cost, high volume production. They have to rely on external expertise and education. Apparently, until now, no activities were started aiming to define the machining parameters for lead-free copper alloys. For instance, in France, the Centre Technique de l’Industrie du Décolletage (CTDec) starts to be active when their members come up with specific demands for assistance. The CTDec has developed testing recommendation and sensors for evaluating new materials. The opinion is that the machining shops could rapidly gain their own experience by using these helps and try to deal with lead-free brasses. Besides the loss of productivity, the major problems will be the need to invest in more rigid equipment, to develop software for adjusting the rotation speeds of the machine e.g. to the different steps of the drilling process, as well as to find more convenient cutting tools. Unfortunately, tools have arrived nowadays at a mature level and there is little margin for innovation. In the USA and Germany first publications are coming up in specialised magazines giving some hints how to work with such alloys. Thus, in the USA a paper was published in 2009 discussing the problems occurring when machining lead-free and low-lead brass with 0.25 % of lead (the paper aimed at plants fabricating plumbing fittings and fixtures for the Californian market): the point was that these alloys should not be run like leaded brass, but rather like steel (Free 2009). The paper made some general recommendations, but without giving any detailed information. The same holds for the educational courses organised since 2013 by the German copper trade association (Deutsches Kupferinstitut). Furthermore, some brass mills start

771 Mitsubishi (2015b), Mitsubishi Shindoh Co., Ltd., Micro-Drilling test report; submitted by Email 13 March 2015 during revision of the ELV exemption. 772 Welter (2014) Jean-Marie Welter: Leaded copper alloys for automotive applications: a scrutiny; European Copper Institute, November 20, 2014; submitted as Annex 2 with the contribution of ACEA et al. (2014); http://elv.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/Consultation_2014_1/Ex_3/E3__02__Welter_201 4_leaded_copper_alloys_for_automotive_applications-a_scrutiny.pdf

358

also to provide general information about machining (mainly macro-machining) the lead-free brasses. Nevertheless the overall perception is that presently machining shops can expect very little support from outside. Thus the forced modification of processing technologies will lead to a distortion of the market to the profit of large machining companies or of speciality machining shops. It is neither very clear whether the lath, tool and lubricant manufacturers have yet started to develop specific equipment and ancillaries for dealing with these new alloys in a productive way. It will still take many years until both the necessary know-how will be obtained and spread on a larger scale and the money will be available to invest into the production tools adapted to the new situation.” A German research project773 on the improvement of the machinability of lead-free copper alloys developed concrete solutions and approaches that comprise adaptations of tool geometries, targeted supply of coolant lubricant in order to provide chip breaking and improve the process reliability. The use of adapted cutting materials (polycrystalline diamond) and tool coating (diamond coatings) provides significantly increased tool life and reduces the rate of metal removal. Productivity was additionally increased by the use of cutting plates with wiper geometry.774 To conclude, it is understood that there may currently still be some restrictions on putting lead-free copper alloys such as Ecobrass into successful applications. The process for adapting machining might take time but it is understood that it basically can be overcome in the future for at least some applications. Generally, the assessment of scientific and technical practicability of substitution of lead in copper alloys is hampered by the fact that Phoenix Contact and Harting who applied for the renewal of the exemption on behalf of 26 EEE organisations and associations did not provide an exhaustive or even indicative overview on the different applications of leaded copper alloys in EEE. Asked for initiatives among the different industry associations and companies to set up an inventory for applications of leaded copper alloys that would allow in the future defining key requirements that are provided by leaded copper alloys, Phoenix Contact and Harting state:775 “There is no such inventory and it is also not planned to set up an inventory. The manufacturers that use leaded copper alloys belong to completely different industries. There is some collaboration between the manufacturers and the associations. But as RoHS is applicable to all EEE the associations have completely different members and the overlap is often quite small. It has to be noticed that such an inventory would contain many sensitive data and companies will not be

773 Nobel & Klocke (2013), Nobel, C., Klocke, F. (2013), Zerspanen bleifreier Kupferwerkstoffe; IGF- Forschungsvorhaben 16867 N, available in German under: http://publications.rwth- aachen.de/record/230384/files/4856.pdf 774 According to Nobel & Klocke (2013), wiper plates have a larger nose radius that allows high feed rates and results in a good surface quality. 775 Op. cit. Phoenix Contact and Harting (2016)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 359

able to give these data to others. Thus there will not be such an inventory where one could make an overview over all components or EEE with leaded copper alloys.” When asked to exhaustively specify the functionality of lead in EEE applications and to name performance indicators where possible which would allow assessing substitutes in the future, Phoenix Contact and Harting state:776 “As shown before the required properties of a material depend on the application and the environment the item will be used in. Thus it is not possible to give a general performance indicator for a material. Not all properties are relevant for all applications and every application will require different properties. Often these properties are not standardized values but it is the specific experience and expertise of the manufacturer. So there is no simple correlation that would allow defining performance indicators.” The consultants understand that there could be a large variety of different components in different surrounding conditions. However, the consultants are of the opinion that an inventory will help to define application groups to deduce the relevant properties. For example, during the ELV revision, the automotive industry777 proposed as application groups for leaded copper alloys “sliding elements”, “electric elements” and “mechanical connecting elements”. The consultants expect that such an inventory would help to identify specific components in the future that could be evaluated as to the applicability of substitutes or of alloys with lower lead content.

20.5.3 Possible Alternatives for Eliminating or Reducing RoHS Substances In this section there are two possibilities discussed, using different material in order to eliminate the use of lead or using leaded copper alloys with a lower lead content in order to reduce the use of lead. The applicant Bourns778 generally mentions that a possible alternative would be stainless steel, but claims that this has a higher cost of machining. Bourns does not specify the components where stainless steel could be used as a substitute. The consultants understand from the other alloy exemptions under RoHS that small connecting components, such as hex nuts or screws for example, are also manufactured by leaded steel and leaded aluminium alloys. Therefore in applications where the components have mechanically connecting functions and where the lead does not provide a function in the finished article, the use of different material should be explored.

776 Op. cit. Phoenix Contact and Harting (2016) 777 ACEA et al. (2014), ACEA, JAMA, KAMA, CLEPA and EAA (2014a), Industry contribution of ACEA, JAMA, KAMA, CLEPA and EAA, submitted during the online stakeholder consultation, retrieved from http://elv.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/Consultation_2014_1/Ex_3/20141210_ACEA_Ann exII_3.pdf 778 Op. cit. Bourns (2015a)

360

PennEngineering779 claimed in its contribution that they achieved using a lower leaded copper alloy and therefore agree to lower the lead threshold of the exemption down to 2.5% from the current 4.0 %. However, from the information provided from the applicants and from the stakeholders submitting contributions a lower threshold of lead cannot be unambiguously defined for all applications. The consultants understand that it might generally be applicable for mechanically moving components. This assumption is based on the one hand on the information provided by Framo Morat and Dunkermotoren, which use leaded copper alloys with a lead content of < 1% for their gear parts. However, information provided by the automotive industry780 during the ELV revision showed that applications with a low lead content in copper alloys are within the “sliding elements” and “mechanical connecting elements” application groups (close to 0.3% Pb within sliding elements and 0.2% Pb within mechanical connecting elements). It might, however not be the case for all mechanically moving components: CETEHOR781 claims to use the alloy CuZn39Pb3 for their extremely small parts. Phoenix Contact and Harting782 added information that for watch components the possibility for dry- machining provided by lead is an important performance requirement while for lead- free alloys lubricants are required. To conclude, the consultants propose that the use of lower leaded copper alloys should systematically be explored where the use of lead-free alloys is not practical.

20.5.4 Environmental Arguments The environmental arguments mentioned by the applicants relate to particular aspects of e.g. the recycling of fluorescent lamps, or to very general ones, such as the importance of copper recycling. Such aspects are not further discussed here as they do not provide insight as to the comparison of leaded copper alloys with lead-free ones in relation to environmental impacts.

20.5.5 Stakeholder Contributions Five contributions were submitted to the stakeholder consultation. The contributions of KEMI,783 CETEHOR784 and PennEngineering785 are discussed in the sections above as well as below.

779 PennEngineering (2015), Contribution by PennEngineering, Danboro, PA, USA, submitted 19.10.2015; available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Ex_6c_PennEngi neering_Consultation_Questionnaire_PE_AS_20151016.pdf 780 Op. cit. ACEA et al. (2014) 781 Op. cit. CETEHOR (2015) 782 Op. cit. Phoenix Contact and Harting (2015a) 783 Op. cit. KEMI (2015) 784 Op. cit. CETEHOR (2015) 785 Op. cit. PennEngineering (2015)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 361

The contributions submitted by TMC786 and JBCE787 raise a legal question as to the availability of the current exemption to category 8 and 9 equipment. TMC and JBCE claim the availability of Annex III exemptions to category 8 and 9 for seven years starting in 22.7.2017. Phoenix Contact and Harting788 state in this regard: “We apply for renewal of this exemption for categories 1 to 7, 10 and 11 of Annex I for an additional validity period of 5 years. For these categories, the validity of this exemption may be required beyond this timeframe. Although applications in this exemption renewal request may be relevant to categories 8 & 9, this renewal request does not address these categories.” As leaded copper alloys are understood to be relevant to all categories, it can be concluded that expiration dates should be specified for all categories.

20.5.6 The Scope of the Exemption The scope of the current exemption is viewed as very wide. As mentioned above, the contribution of the Swedish Chemicals Agency KEMI makes reference to Article 5(1)(a) that stipulates an inclusion of materials and components of EEE for specific applications in the lists in Annexes III and IV. The specification of applications is understood not to be exhaustive for Ex. 6c. KEMI therefore proposes to split into a number of more specific exemptions, related to applications where it has been verified that feasible alternatives are currently not available. Though the consultants agree with the need to narrow the scope of the exemption, it is presently not possible to comprehensively conclude specific applications to narrow the scope of the exemption. Phoenix Contact and Harting789 explain that “in most cases the component manufacturer chooses the material due to the characteristics required for the specific component. The EEE manufacturer uses this component to build the EEE. As in the supply chain, often several stages between the component manufacturer and the EEE manufacturer exist the component manufacturer often does not know in which applications the component is used. On the other hand the EEE manufacturer normally does not know for which specific reasons the component manufacturer chose the material as this is the specific know-how of the component manufacturer.“ This is similar to the situation of leaded steel alloys in Ex. 6a. Therefore a comparable approach will also be discussed for the leaded copper alloys, as follows below. The consultants would expect that the scope could be narrowed based on application groups or based on critical properties and required performance in application groups. This could require a supply chain survey, in order to collect and compile relevant

786 Op. cit. TMC (2015) 787 Op. cit. JBCE (2015) 788 Op. cit. Phoenix Contact and Harting (2015a) 789 Op. cit. Phoenix Contact and Harting (2015b)

362

information and to allow conclusions as to relevant properties and performance levels. Time may be needed in order to initiate such a survey along the supply chain to gain this information and screen all relevant applications relevant to arrive at an exhaustive list (of applications or of properties). However, this effort is presumed to be feasible as well as important for communicating to the customers where additional effort is needed in the applications of substitutes in the future. As in the case of leaded steel alloys, in the case of leaded copper alloys the applicants Phoenix Contact and Harting790 also point out the individual and specific situation of each machining company: “For example the machinability is not one isolated property but it depends on material, tool, coolant, machining technology and of course of the part that is to be made. Thus the change of one parameter also causes changes in the other parameters.” Therefore it might be that an exhaustive list of properties also specifying the required performance level and the relevant performance indicators that are relevant for such properties might not be practicable to refine the scope of the exemption. To support this understanding, however, the complexity of the situation at hand needs to be presented and substantiated. The wide scope currently addressed in the exemption is open to misuse in cases where substitution might be possible. Therefore the consultants conclude that although a comprehensive list of applications may be long for refining the scope of the exemption, this is however of importance for establishing the potential of a change in scope. The consultants consider this to be the first step to further narrow the scope of the exemption, which the industry must be induced to undertake.

20.5.7 Exemption Wording Formulation As with the other alloy exemptions, the need to narrow down the exemption is evident. However, at this time on the basis of the available information the consultants cannot conclude a list of exhaustive applications of leaded copper alloys, which would be a prerequisite for narrowing the exemption.

20.5.8 Conclusions Article 5(1)(a) provides that an exemption can be justified if at least one of the following criteria is fulfilled: · their elimination or substitution via design changes or materials and components which do not require any of the materials or substances listed in Annex II is scientifically or technically impracticable; · the reliability of substitutes is not ensured; · the total negative environmental, health and consumer safety impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the total environmental, health and consumer safety benefits thereof.

790 Op. cit. Phoenix Contact and Harting (2015b)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 363

The consultants understand from the information provided that there are substitutes available that could at least be used for some applications. However, the use of alternatives (e.g. Ecobrass) requires adaptations in the machining process. Consequently, substitution with Ecobrass is currently understood to have restrictions limiting its applicability to certain applications, and possibly requiring machining adaptations in others. There are results from publically funded research that suggest how to overcome machinability challenges. Therefore it can be assumed that at least for some applications, the machining problems can be overcome in the future. It can be understood that there are additional lead-free copper alloys; however information was not provided in relation to other specific alloys. It is further noted that though the applicants and stakeholders provide some detail as to their efforts towards substitution, in most cases statements remain general in nature. Quantitative comparisons are not sufficiently available to allow comparing between leaded alloys and various lead-free candidates in relation to various application sub- groups. The remaining applications have to be specified by performing an integrated survey of the supply chain in order to narrow the scope of the exemption to a comprehensive list of applications. This would need the engagement of EEE component manufacturers as different applicants mentioned the dependency of the supply chain. The consultants can follow that this would be time-consuming. However, the consultants think that the current scope is not justified and recommend a short-term exemption to allow performing such a survey. The set-up of a comprehensive list of applications would also allow deciding, whether the lead content can be further reduced in a certain application range. It might be that for a specific application group a general lower lead threshold can possibly be achieved.

20.6 Recommendation Based on the above considerations, it can currently not be concluded whether substitution of the use of copper alloys containing lead up to 4% by weight is scientifically or technically practicable. It appears that substitutes can be applied in some cases (lead-free or with lower lead content), however mutual factors that would allow conclusions for specific sub-groups cannot currently be identified. It can also be understood that at least in some cases, available substitutes cannot be applied. The overall picture where substitution efforts are promising is not clear enough at present. The aim of a future review should therefore be an exhaustive inventory on the applications of leaded copper alloys together with their technical requirements in order to check the applicability of a more narrow scope for the exemption. This should also encourage machining process adaptation to be further investigated to process lead-free [and/or reduced lead] alloys. Various stakeholders explain that such a survey would not be practical; however it is the obligation of the applicants (and of stakeholders interested in the exemptions renewal) to provide sufficient information to justify exemptions and their renewal.

364

Thus, the consultants recommend the renewal of Exemption 6c with the current scope and wording. However to stress the need to set up such an inventory and to start an integrated approach and to initiate a comprehensive survey along the value chain with a view to, at least, identify lists of components or categories of applications for lead reduction or substitution, the consultants propose to set a short review period of three years. As it does not seem that most stakeholders have detailed plans as to how to promote substitution in the future, the consultants would further recommend cancelling the exemption, should industry fail to provide substantiated information in the future.

Exemption 6c Duration* For Cat. 1-7 and 10 and 11: 21 July 2019 For Cat. 8 and 9: 21 July 2021 Copper alloy containing up to 4% lead by weight For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: 21 July 2023 For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024 Note: As it can be understood that the exemption duration may vary for various categories on the basis of Article 5(2), expiration dates have been specified here for all categories either on the basis of the requested duration in the exemption request which the consultants perceive to be justified, or on the basis of the validity periods specified in Article 5(2) for categories, which are newly in scope.

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 365

20.7 References Exemption 6c ACEA et al. (2014) ACEA, JAMA, KAMA, CLEPA and EAA, Industry contribution of ACEA, JAMA, KAMA, CLEPA and EAA, submitted during the online stakeholder consultation, retrieved from http://elv.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/ user_upload/Consultation_2014_1/Ex_3/20141210_ACEA_AnnexII_3.pdf Bourns (2015a) Bourns, Inc., Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 19.01.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _c_/Bourns/6c_Exemption_extension_ap_6c.pdf Bourns (2015b) Bourns, Inc., Answers to Clarification Questions, submitted 29.08.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/ fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Bourns/20150811_Bourns_Ex _6c_1st_round_of_Clarification-Questions.pdf Dunkermotoren (2014) Dunkermotoren GmbH, Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 15.12.2014, English version available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/ RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Dunkermotoren/151008_Anmerkungen_Ausnahmea ntrag_Dunkermotoren_6c_Messing_english.pdf Dunkermotoren (2015) Dunkermotoren GmbH, Additional Information to the Application, submitted 08.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _c_/Dunkermotoren/Additional_information_to_our_application_6c___Dunkermotor en.pdf Framo Morat (2014) Framo Morat GmbH & Co. KG, Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 10.12.2014, English version available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/ user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Framo/Ex_6c_Framo_Morat_2015-08- 13_RoHS_Exemption_Request_fkn_Public.pdf Framo Morat (2015) Framo Morat GmbH & Co. KG, Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 18.18.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/ user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Framo/20150818_Ex_6c_FramoMorat_ 1st_round_of_Clarification-Questions_fkn.pdf GENBAND (2015) Contribution by GENBAND, submitted 14.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _c_/EX_6c_GENBAND_STAKEHOLDER_CONTRIBUTION.pdf Gensch et al. (2009) Oeko-Institut e. V., 20 February 2009, Adaptation to scientific and technical progress under Directive 2002/95/EC: Final Report. With the assistance of Stéphanie Zangl, Rita Groß, Anna Weber, Oeko-Institut e. V. and Otmar Deubzer, Fraunhofer IZM. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_reportl_rohs1_en.pdf

366

HARTING et al. (2015a) Contribution by HARTING KGaA et al., submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/ user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Ex_6c_HARTING_KGaA__stakeholder_c onsultation_2015-10-16.pdf HARTING et al. (2015b) Contribution by HARTING KGaA et al. as a response to the contribution of Mitsubishi Shindoh, submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/ RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Ex_6c_HARTING_KGaA_response_Mitsubishi_Shindo h_2015-10-16.pdf JBCE (2015) Contribution by JBCE – Japan Business Council in Europe in a.i.b.l, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _c_/Comment_on_public_cousulation_of_Exemption_request_2015-2_6_c__.pdf KEMI (2015) Contribution by KEMI Kemikalieinspektionen, Swedish Chemicals Agency, submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _c_/Ex_6c_KEMI_Answer_to_SC_RoHS_20151016_Lead_in_copper.pdf LEU (2015a) LightingEurope, Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 16.01.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _c_/Lighting_Europe/6c_LE_RoHS_Exemption_Req_Final.pdf LEU (2015b) LightingEurope, Answers to Clarification Questions, submitted 28.08.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _c_/Lighting_Europe/Ex_6c_LightingEurope1st_round_Clarification_LE_Answers_201 50828.pdf Mitsubishi (2015) Contribution by Mitsubishi Shindoh Co. Ltd., submitted 07.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/ user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Exemption_6c__2015-10-mitsubishi- shindoh-rohs.pdf Mitsubishi (2015b) Mitsubishi Shindoh Co., Ltd., Micro-Drilling test report; submitted by Email 13 March 2015 during revision of the ELV exemption. Mitsubishi (2016) Mitsubishi Shindoh Co. Ltd., Answers to Clarification Questions, submitted 15.01.2016. Nobel & Klocke (2013) Nobel, C., Klocke, F. (2013), Zerspanen bleifreier Kupferwerkstoffe; IGF-Forschungsvorhaben 16867 N, available in German under: http://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/230384/files/4856.pdf ODU (2015) Contribution by ODU GmbH & Co. KG, submitted 12.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/ user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Stakeholder_Consultation_on_RoHS_Ex emption_6c.pdf

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 367

Phoenix Contact and Harting (2015a) PHOENIX Contact GmbH&Co. KG and HARTING KGaA, Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 16.01.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _c_/Phoenix/6c_RoHS_Exemption_6c_Renewal_Dossier_16_JAN_2015.pdf Phoenix Contact and Harting (2015b) PHOENIX Contact GmbH&Co. KG and HARTING KGaA, Answers to Clarification Questions, submitted 14.09.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/ RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Ex_6c_Phoenix_Harting_Answers_1st_round_clarifyi ng_questions_14.09.2015.pdf Phoenix Contact and Harting (2016) PHOENIX Contact GmbH&Co. KG and HARTING KGaA, Answers to 2nd Clarification Questions, submitted 29.01.2016. Robert Bosch GmbH (2015) Contribution by Robert Bosch GmbH, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/ user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_c_/Bosch-Stakeholder-contribution- Exemption-request-6c.pdf Sensata (2015a) Sensata Technologies Holland B.V., Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 15.01.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/ RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6_b_/Sensata/6a_6b_6c_RoHS-Exemptions_Application- Format_Ex_6a_b_c_Pb_in_St_Al_Cu.pdf Sensata (2015b) Sensata Technologies Holland B.V., Answers to Clarification Questions, submitted 20.08.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_6 _c_/Sensata/Ex_6a6b6c_Sensata_Questions_response_20150820.pdf TMC (2015) Contribution by Test & Measurement Coalition, submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/ fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_1_a- e_/General_Contribution_Test___Measurement_Coalition_package_9_exemptions_2 0151016.pdf Welter (2014) Jean-Marie Welter, Leaded copper alloys for automotive applications: a scrutiny; European Copper Institute, 20 November 2014; submitted as Annex 2 with the contribution of ACEA et al. (2014); http://elv.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/ Consultation_2014_1/Ex_3/E3__02__Welter_2014_leaded_copper_alloys_for_autom otive_applications-a_scrutiny.pdf

368

26.0 Exemption 9: "Hexavalent chromium as an anticorrosion agent of the carbon steel cooling system in absorption refrigerators up to 0,75 % by weight in the cooling solution"

Declaration In the sections that precede the “Critical Review” the phrasings and wordings of stakeholders’ explanations and arguments have been adopted from the documents provided by the stakeholders as far as required and reasonable in the context of the evaluation at hand. Formulations have been altered in cases where it was necessary to maintain the readability and comprehensibility of the text. These sections are based exclusively on information provided by applicants and stakeholders, unless otherwise stated.

Acronyms and Definitions CrVI Hexavalent chromium CrIII Trivalent chromium ECHA European Chemicals Agency EEE Electrical and electronic equipment ELV End-of-life vehicle EoL End-of-life EU COM European Commission RAC Risk Assessment Committee RV Recreational vehicles SEAC Socio-Economic Analysis Committee TMC The Test and Measurement Coalition

564

26.1 Background According to the applicant,1470 absorption refrigerators are used in recreational vehicles (RV), marine applications, camping boxes and mobile cooling boxes for medical purposes1471 and generally in cases of restricted space e.g. for hotel minibars, in lodges and small apartments, because they operate silently and vibration-free. Absorption refrigerators can be run on different energy sources like electricity, kerosene or gas. Some products are designed to run on variable energy sources. The noiseless operation and the possibility to switch between the energy sources are the important performance criterion according to the applicant. In absorption refrigeration, a heat source (e.g. gas or electricity) is used to separate the ammonia from the water that then enters the evaporator where the presence of hydrogen lowers the ammonia vapour pressure sufficiently to allow the liquid ammonia to evaporate. The evaporation of the ammonia extracts heat from the air, thereby lowering the temperature inside the refrigerator.1472 This is schematically shown in the following figure.

1470 Dometic (2015a), Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 20.01.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_9/9_150120_RoHS_V _Application_Form_Dometic.pdf Dometic (2015c), Dometic GmbH, Analysis of Alternatives and Socio-Economic Analysis, available under http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/0783ee3a-7de9-45ec-a72a-c1689ee49e09 1471 For e.g. transportation of vaccine and blood according to Dometic (2015c) 1472 Op. cit. Dometic (2015c)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 565

Figure 26 -1: Absorption cooling system schematic

Source: Dometic (2015c)

Hexavalent chromium (CrVI) acts as an anticorrosion agent of the carbon steel cooling system in absorption refrigerators. According to the applicant1473, CrVI is used to create a thin and tight layer on the interior surface of the steel tubes to protect them from the cooling solution that contains corrosive ammonia. The cooling system is comprised from carbon steel because of its strength and its good welding- and cold-working properties. Dometic has submitted a request for the renewal of Ex. 9: “Hexavalent chromium as an anticorrosion agent of the carbon steel cooling system in absorption refrigerators up to 0,75 % by weight in the cooling solution” Dometic requests an extension of the exemption for another three years in order to finalize substitution with an alternative corrosion inhibitor in the absorption refrigerator

1473 Op. cit. Dometic (2015a)

566

range of products falling under RoHS. According to the applicant1474, most of the products used in the lodging industry and in private homes are covered by the RoHS Directive. The applicant1475 states that products falling under the RoHS Scope belong to category 1. The applicant further explains that products for recreational vehicles (RV) and marine applications with absorption technology are most often specifically designed for that purpose and thus fall outside of the scope of RoHS. Several products for RV fall within the scope of the ELV-directive.1476 A corresponding exemption is available under the ELV Directive (2000/53/EC, Annex II, Ex. 14) and is formulated as follows: “As an anti-corrosion agent of the carbon steel cooling system in absorption refrigerators in motorcaravans up to 0,75 weight % in the cooling solution except where the use of other cooling technologies is practicable (i.e. available on the market for the application in motor caravans) and does not lead to negative environmental, health and/or consumer safety impacts”.

26.1.1 History of the Exemption During the last revision of Exemption 9, the same wording was proposed as under the ELV Directive mentioned in the para above.1477 It was understood that research and development of alternatives for CrVI was still underway and required additional time. Furthermore, alternative cooling technologies such as thermoelectric refrigeration and compressor refrigeration that do not need CrVI were discussed during the last revision. At the time, Dometic stated that for some areas of use compressor-based alternatives are available. However, being noisier than absorption refrigerators, this may be a health concern for some consumers. Though noise could possibly be mitigated through design changes, it was further understood that small-scale compressor-based refrigerators are only available for a small number of applications, starting with approximately 80 l, and thus not suited as e.g. built-in minibars of approximately 40 l. Thus it was concluded at the time that such compressor-based units cannot be used as alternatives on the system level to eliminate the need for absorption refrigerators using CrVI as a corrosion resistance agent. The renewal of the exemption was therefore recommended, resulting in the exemption currently listed in Annex III.

1474 Dometic (2015b), Answers to Clarification Questions, submitted 13.08.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_9/20150813_Ex_9_D ometic_replay_on_questions.pdf 1475 Op. cit. Dometic (2015a) 1476 Op. cit. Dometic (2015b) 1477 Gensch, et al. (2009), Carl-Otto Gensch, Oeko-Institut e. V., et al. 20 February 2009, Adaptation to scientific and technical progress under Directive 2002/95/EC: Final Report. With the assistance of Stéphanie Zangl, Rita Groß, Anna Weber, Oeko-Institut e. V. and Otmar Deubzer, Fraunhofer IZM. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_reportl_rohs1_en.pdf

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 567

26.1.2 Amount of Hexavalent Chromium Used under the Exemption Dometic1478 states that the average amount of CrVI used for a typical refrigerator model is around 2 grams. Regarding the amount of substance entering the EU market annually through the application for which the exemption renewal is requested, Dometic estimates: “approximately 200 kg per annum referring to units produced by Dometic.” This is understood to be relevant only for products that Dometic considers to fall under RoHS (i.e., used in lodging industry and private homes), which are part of its manufacture. Dometics’ total annual use of CrVI for its whole product range (also including products with a gas running heater and a high boiler temperature) is estimated at 700 kg/year.1479

26.2 Description of Requested Exemption According to the applicant1480, sodium chromate (a hexavalent chromium compound) functions as a corrosion inhibitor in the carbon steel structure of the cooling unit in absorption refrigerators. The cooling solution consists of ammonia, water, sodium chromate and hydrogen gas, retained at a sufficient pressure to condense ammonia at the ambient temperature. To allow a long service life of the sealed cooling system, the sodium chromate in the cooling solution protects the steel pipes from interior corrosion that would arise in the presence of the corrosive ammonia. Dometic1481 states that they have searched for alternatives to CrVI “for decades” and that their tests included solutions such as coatings, substrate materials and altering design parameters. Dometic1482 further explains that they have identified an alternative corrosion inhibitor, which has reached successful laboratory results: “This inhibitor, named inhibitor #7, was found to be able to protect the carbon steel tubing from corrosion after 3 years of continuous circulation and it was consequently selected for further testing.” Dometic considers inhibitor #7 as a candidate to replace CrVI, with an acceptable expected life time, performance and safety level. However, some tasks need to be completed before inhibitor #7 can be used on a large scale.

1478 Op. cit. Dometic (2015a) 1479 Op. cit. Dometic (2015c) 1480 Op. cit. Dometic (2015a) 1481 Op. cit. Dometic (2015c) 1482 Op. cit. Dometic (2015a)

568

26.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption According to Dometic, a renewal of the exemption for three years is needed in order to complete the following tasks that are needed to ensure a long service life of the absorption refrigerators:1483 · “Finalising and extension of field tests and increased testing of some specific models. · Redesign of our cooling units to decrease the boiling temperature and minimising the risk for corrosion inside the tubes. This is an extensive work as we have close to 100 different models of cooling units in production. · Design and installation of factory equipment for inhibitor #7. This important step includes also reliability testing of inhibitor #7 in combination with the new equipment.” In order to use sodium chromate in minibars Dometic has applied for an exemption under the RoHS directive for a period of 3 years, until 2019.1484 Dometic considers the minibars to fall under RoHS and characterises them as products with low boiler temperatures (<180°C). It is understood from the information provided by Dometic that the heater in products with low boiler temperature is exclusively run on electricity. According to Dometic1485, “products with higher boiler temperatures are mostly (but not exclusively) included in the RV and medical box product groups. Coincidentally these products are used in a harsher environment than products with lower operating temperature. They are exposed to considerable variation in outside temperature, vibration and they are on discontinuously.” It is understood that these applications run on other energy sources then electricity (e.g. gas) or are able to run on variable energy sources. According to Dometic, for products with higher boiler temperature, the whole cooling unit has to be redesigned. The timeline for the substitution strategy for the different products specified by boiler temperature is depicted in Section 26.3.3. The identity of the possible substitute is not revealed by Dometic. Dometic1486 indicates that the alternative corrosion inhibitor “inhibitor #7” is a mixture containing an inorganic salt and stabilisers.

1483 Op. cit. Dometic (2015a) 1484 Op. cit. Dometic (2015c) 1485 Op. cit. Dometic (2015c) 1486 Op. cit. Dometic (2015c)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 569

26.3.1 Environmental Arguments Dometic1487 states that a closed-loop system exists for the absorption refrigerators and the refrigerant: “The products are at end-of-life recycled as other refrigerators in a step 1 process (reclaim of refrigerant) and step 2 (shredding and material separation). The total recycling rate is more than 95%.” According to Dometic,1488 the disassembling of the absorption refrigerators is specified through a recycling manual1489, which states that “The cooling unit should be emptied by an authorized recycling company”.1490 Absorption refrigerators in recreational vehicles have to be removed and handled separately before shredding the complete vehicle.1491 Dometic1492 explains that they have developed recycling equipment together with another company, Herco, to reclaim cooling media from absorption fridges.1493 This equipment enables reclaiming a minimum of 95% of the refrigerant. Dometic1494 states that the reclaimed refrigerant is to be treated as hazardous waste. Dometic notes that at end-of-life, less CrVI is recovered then initially applied: In the formation of the very thin and tight corrosion protective layer of chromium oxide (Cr2O3) on the interior tube surface, CrVI is reduced to less toxic trivalent chromium (CrIII).1495 If the layer is damaged, it will be replenished by the sodium dichromate available in the solution. Dometic1496 estimates that “90% of Cr(VI) is reduced to Cr(III) in the first 2-3 years of operating time. At the end of the product lifetime it can therefore safely be assumed that, more than 75% of the Cr(VI) has been consumed.”

1487 Op. cit. Dometic (2015a) 1488 Dometic (2016a), Dometic (2016), Answers to 2nd round of Clarification Questions, submitted 13.01.2016. 1489 http://www2.dometic.com/FileOrganizer/1-international/x- environment/Environmental%20Documents/Recycling%20Manuals/English/Manual-Recycling-Hotel.pdf 1490 For the authorization of such companies, Dometic states that “an important element in this authorization is the harmonized standards that have been developed under WEEE-Labex and are now transformed into EN-standards. EN 50574 (Collection, logistics & treatment requirements of end-of-life household appliances containing volatile fluorocarbons or volatile hydrocarbons) sets up detailed requirements for the end-of-life treatment of cooling appliances including absorption fridges.” 1491 Global ISDS system for car recycling: http://civd.adm.in/fileadmin/civd/images/technik/Dismantling_Manual_CIVD_for_IDIS_evo4-1.pdf 1492 Op. cit. Dometic (2016a) 1493 http://www.herco-gmbh.com/en/products/cooling-unit-recycling/ammonia-based-chillers/ 1494 Op. cit. Dometic (2015a) 1495 Op. cit. Dometic (2015c) 1496 Op. cit. Dometic (2015c)

570

26.3.2 Socio-economic Impact of Substitution Dometic1497 states in its renewal request that the substitution will have an economic impact in light of the increase in direct production costs and the increase in overhead. In the context of the RoHS Directive, Dometic did not provide further detail; however, additional details are available in an application that Dometic submitted to ECHA in the application for authorisation under REACH for the use of sodium chromate as an anticorrosion agent.1498

26.3.3 Road Map to Substitution As mentioned above, Dometic plans to finalize the substitution within three years and therefore applies for a renewal of exemption 9 for this duration. Dometic1499 states that this timeline only applies to those products that are – in the opinion of Dometic – within the scope of RoHS. Dometic considers the products that are used, for instance, in the lodging industry and in private homes to fall under the RoHS Directive. For the whole product range, Dometic1500 plans to phase out the existing inhibitor gradually depending on application: The first products that will be placed on the market in 2018 with the substitute (i.e. CrVI-free) will be products running with electrical heater in low boiler temperature applications (140-180°C), which are typical for a minibar. To complete substitution in such units, the cooling unit needs to be re-designed and a boiler temperature management system needs to be introduced. These changes require some development and testing planned to be completed by 2018. According to Dometic1501, the tasks already listed in bullet points under Section 26.3 have to be carried out in order to ensure reliable and safe products (field tests, redesign of cooling unit models, development of appropriate factory equipment). The timeline for other products that Dometic considers to be outside the scope of RoHS can be found in Dometic’s application for authorisation under REACH.1502 According to Dometic1503, the products with higher boiler temperatures need more work before the new inhibitor can replace sodium chromate because the cooling units need to be

1497 Op. cit. Dometic (2015a) 1498 Dometic (2015c), Dometic (2015c), Dometic GmbH, Analysis of Alternatives and Socio-Economic Analysis, available under http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/0783ee3a-7de9-45ec-a72a- c1689ee49e09 Regarding the application for authorization, see also section 26.5.1. 1499 Op. cit. Dometic (2015b): “Most of the products covered by the RoHS Directive are used in lodging industry and in private homes. Products for recreational vehicles (RV) and marine applications with absorption technology are most often specifically designed for that purpose and thus fall outside of the scope or RoHS. Several products for RV fall within the scope of the ELV-directive.” See section 26.5.5 for the discussion on the scope of the exemption. 1500 Op. cit. Dometic (2015b) 1501 Op. cit. Dometic (2015a) 1502 Op. cit. Dometic (2015c) 1503 Op. cit. Dometic (2015c)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 571

redesigned and new safety equipment has to be included. According to Dometic1504, “products with higher boiler temperatures are mostly (but not exclusively) included in the RV and medical box product groups.” Dometic1505 explains that technical challenges arising for these product groups are also due to the more diverse operating conditions, e.g. varying ambient temperature, vibration and more frequent starts and stops. Dometic1506 makes a distinction within the products with higher boiler temperatures, and plans a gradual product launch from 2025 on. The complete phase out is envisaged by 2029 by Dometic.

26.4 Stakeholder Contributions A single contribution was made during the stakeholder consultation regarding Ex. 5(b). The Test and Measurement Coalition (TMC)1507 includes the seven leading companies in the sector representing roughly 60% of the global production of industrial test and measurement products. It is TMC’s understanding that, according to the RoHS Directive, the exemptions listed in Annex III and Annex IV for which no expiry date has been specified, apply to sub-category 9 industrial with a validity period of 7 years, starting from 22 July 2017. This is also said to be explained in the RoHS FAQ.1508 TMC, thus does not interpret the current exemption evaluation related to Exemption 9 to concern category 9 industrial equipment, for which the exemptions evaluated in the study “RoHS evaluations Pack 9” are understood to remain valid, and has thus have not provided exemption specific information. After the consultation, other manufacturers of absorption refrigerants placing their products on the EU market were contacted in order to establish if some or all of these other manufacturers support the exemption request, or alternatively do not need the requested exemption renewal. Three manufacturers were urged to provide a statement. However, only Thetford actively provided information on their product range and substitution efforts.1509 Thetford stated that their product portfolio differs from Dometic: It is limited to recreational vehicle absorption refrigerators and does not include minibar applications.1510 Thetford’s absorption cooling units are manufactured in the USA. According to Thetford “All absorption refrigerators currently on the market use sodium

1504 Op. cit. Dometic (2015c) 1505 Op. cit. Dometic (2015b) 1506 Op. cit. Dometic (2015c) 1507 Test & Measurement Coalition (2015), Contribution by Test & Measurement Coalition, submitted 19 October 2015, available under http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_1_a- e_/General_Contribution_Test___Measurement_Coalition_package_9_exemptions_20151016.pdf 1508 p. 26; http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/pdf/faq.pdf 1509 Thetford (2016a), Information provided by Thetford by Email, submitted 9 February 2016 and Thetford (2016b), Information provided by Thetford by Email, submitted 16 February 2016. 1510 http://www.thetford-europe.com/product-category/refrigerators/

572

chromate as a corrosion inhibitor as far as we are aware.” Thetford already indicated during the last revision in 2009 that they were in the process of starting up a research project to investigate alternatives for the substitution of CrVI. As for the scope of the exemption and its duration, Thetford1511 is of the opinion that RoHS is as applicable to RV specific refrigerators as it is to generic household refrigerators. Thetford argues that any extension of exemption 9 should cover all relevant applications, and allow enough time to cover substitution or elimination for all these applications. As for end-of-life, Thetford1512 also claims to have a closed loop system operated by third party waste management service operators so that the refrigerant is removed and treated as hazardous waste.

26.5 Critical Review

26.5.1 REACH Compliance - Relation to the REACH Regulation Appendix A.1.0 of this report lists various entries in the REACH Regulation annexes that restrict the use of CrVI in various articles and uses. Sodium chromate (CAS 7775-11-3; EC 231-889-5) is included in REACH Annex XIV in light of its being identified as carcinogenic (category 1B), mutagenic (category 1B) and toxic for reproduction (category 1B).1513 Dometic GmbH and Dometic Hűtőgépgyártó és Kereskedelmi Zrt. submitted an application for authorisation under REACH for: “the use of sodium chromate as an anticorrosion agent of the carbon steel cooling system in absorption refrigerators up to 0.75% by weight (Cr6+) in the cooling solution”.1514 Dometic GmbH in Germany and Dometic Hűtőgépgyártó és Kereskedelmi Zrt. in Hungary produce absorption refrigerators in Europe and would thus not be able to use sodium chromate without an authorisation after the sunset date of this substance specified in Annex XIV as 21 September 2017. The application of authorisation covers the whole product range of absorption refrigerators produced in Europe: minibars, refrigerators for recreational vehicles and medical cold equipment. Dometic plans to phase out sodium chromate stepwise beginning with the electrically operated refrigerators. The phase out is planned to be

1511 Op. cit. Thetford (2016b) 1512 Op. cit. Thetford (2016b) 1513 Entry No 22in Annex XIV, sunset date 21/09/2017, latest application date 21/03/2016; http://echa.europa.eu/addressing-chemicals-of-concern/authorisation/recommendation-for-inclusion-in- the-authorisation-list/authorisation-list/-/substance-rev/62/term 1514 http://echa.europa.eu/addressing-chemicals-of-concern/authorisation/applications-for-authorisation- previous-consultations/-/substance-rev/10106/term

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 573

finalized in 2029. According to Dometic1515, absorption refrigerators that operate with gas and therefore have higher boiler temperatures need more technical development before the new inhibitor can replace sodium chromate (e.g. re-design of the cooling units, new safety equipment). On 1 February 2016, ECHA’s Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) and Socio-Economic Analysis Committee (SEAC) published its opinion recommending the requested authorisation to be granted with a review period scheduled within 12 years.1516 Assuming the authorisation is granted sodium chromate could still be manufactured and used in EU manufacture. In the opinion, the following condition for authorisation is noted: “SEAC recommends that after the end of 2019 as described in the application, the authorisation of the use of sodium chromate is limited to the high boiler temperature product range only.”1516 Assuming that the authorisation is approved, the renewal of the RoHS exemption would not be understood to weaken the protection afforded by REACH. Entries 28, 29 and 30 of REACH Annex XVII also apply to sodium chromate. These entries require that specified substances “Shall not be placed on the market, or used: as substances; as constituents of other substances; or in mixtures, for supply to the general public when the individual concentration in the substance or mixture” is above a certain threshold. Though one could argue that these entries do not restrict the presence of specified substances in articles, in which case they would not apply to the use of Dometic (since the refrigerator is an article), it is not completely clear how to interpret these restrictions. In the products at hand, sodium chromate is used as a constituent in a mixture which is enclosed within the cooling system. Though the consultants assume that the legislator mainly had in mind the provision to the public of substances and mixtures in containers that can be opened to allow use of the substance at hand, the derogations to these entries suggest otherwise. Paragraph 2 of this entry excludes some articles from this restriction, among others specifying in (c)(second item) that the restriction shall not apply to “fuels sold in closed systems (e.g. liquid gas bottles)”. In this sense the legislator would need to confirm whether the application at hand would be restricted through these entries or not. Chromium VI also features in entry 47 REACH Annex XVII, where the use in cement is restricted. This is not considered to be relevant for absorption refrigerators.

1515 Op. cit. Dometic (2015c) 1516 ECHA RAC SEAC (2016), ECHA’s Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) and Committee for Socio- economic Analysis (SEAC) (2016), Opinion on an Application for Authorisation for Sodium chromate use: The use of sodium chromate as an anticorrosion agent of the carbon steel cooling system in absorption refrigerators up to 0.75% by weight (Cr6+) in the cooling solution, Consolidated version, 1 February 2016; http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/5a39678c-4e9a-42bc-878c-8997c74caeba

574

If the ECHA RAC SEAC recommendations to grant the authorisation for sodium chromate are to be followed, and assuming that Entries 28 through 30 do not apply, it can be considered that the requested RoHS exemption renewal would not weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by the REACH Regulation. In this case an exemption could therefore be granted if other criteria of Art. 5(1)(a) apply. The option that one of the restrictions addressed above and its implications on a possible exemption are discussed below in Section 26.5.6.

26.5.2 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution Dometic provides information according to which they plan to phase-out the use of CrVI from the entire product range, starting with the products understood to be the least technically challenging. It is understood that the first products applying the substitute shall be the absorption refrigerators with low boiler temperatures running exclusively with electricity. Dometic estimates the tasks to adapt these products to take three years. Dometic is confident that it shall meet this timeline: “Our tests for the substitution alternative are still positive in relation to the main part of the products covered by RoHS (low boiler temperature applications – see below). We are currently making significant investments into production equipment in order to be able to meet the time line. In parallel there are still tests ongoing. There is of course an existing risk that our following tests involving new production equipment and large quantities of products will fail. Should this happen we will have to renew the application to extend the exemption. However, we are very committed to the change when technically viable and given this we do not want to extend the exemption period longer than necessary.” It is understood that the substitution in products with higher boiler temperature still needs basic evaluation and technical development. In 2015, Dometic stated that the “validation studies of inhibitor #7 function in higher boiler temperatures are ongoing.” The launch of first products applying the substitute in higher boiler temperature conditions is planned by Dometic for 2025. This time frame is longer than the maximum validity period possible for category 1 products under RoHS. It further appears that other manufacturers are yet to achieve substitution in their absorption refrigerators and that they also need more time to complete the substitution tests and to achieve substitution in products to come on the market (e.g. Thetford). To summarize, the consultants can follow that the development of substitutes has progressed, however also that implementation requires additional time in order to ensure the reliability of the substitute before it can come onto the market in absorption refrigerators.

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 575

26.5.3 Environmental Arguments As already explored in Section 26.3.1, from information provided by Dometic, the consultants can follow that absorption refrigerators are recycled and that the cooling system with the cooling solution containing the CrVI is collected by recyclers with separate equipment. This information suggests that possible environmental emissions related to End-of-Life (EoL) would be controlled, when the products are disposed of properly. Further information related to other environmental aspects was not provided.

26.5.4 Stakeholder Contributions The contribution submitted by Test & Measurement Coalition raises a legal question as to the availability of the current exemption to category 9 equipment. Regardless of TMC’s claims as to the availability of Annex III exemptions to sub-category 9 industrial for 7 years starting in 22.7.2017, in the case of exemption 9 the wording formulation limits its applicability to the anticorrosion agent applied in carbon steel cooling systems of absorption refrigerators. These products are understood to be a product, which as stated by the applicant fall under category 1 and not under category 9. Thus from a practical perspective, in the consultants’ opinion, sub-category 9 industrial equipment would not benefit from the exemption directly.

26.5.5 The Scope of the Exemption Dometic have requested the exemption for products that Dometic interprets to be in the scope of the RoHS Directive: These are mainly the low boiler temperature applications, where the heater is exclusively run on electricity. According to Dometic,1517 “most of the products covered by the RoHS Directive are used in lodging industry and in private homes. Products for recreational vehicles (RV) and marine applications with absorption technology are most often specifically designed for that purpose and thus fall outside of the scope or RoHS. Several products for RV fall within the scope of the ELV-directive.” Generally speaking in article 2(4)(c)the RoHS Directive excludes “equipment which is specifically designed and is to be installed, as part of another type of equipment that it is excluded or does not fall within the scope of this Directive…”. The consultants assume that Dometic interprets the applicability of RoHS to its products on this basis. For example, where absorption refrigerators are specifically designed and are to be installed in caravans, this interpretation would mean that the equipment would be excluded from RoHS. In this respect, Dometic1518 states: “a) For the 2015 sales approximately 7 % of our products designed for recreational vehicles (RV) have been sold in after-market. Remaining 93 % have been sold in B2B direct to RV producers. It should however here be

1517 Op. cit. Dometic (2015b) 1518 Op. cit. Dometic (2016)

576

highlighted that the major sales in after-market is not to private customers. We estimate that only less than 10 % of the sales in after-market is to private customers for product replacement and as do-it-yourself installations. The vast majority of the after-market sales is to professional companies providing installation. The absorption refrigerators for RV do have the option of running on several energy sources, and the installation of gas burner systems must only be carried out by certified personnel. Furthermore, the installation of a safe exhaust system is necessary to avoid flue gases into the living compartment. Due to this the installations made by private customers are limited. b) All Dometic absorption refrigerators designed for RV have electrical functions. One or two electrical heaters are assembled for running the refrigerator when electricity is available.” Thetford as another manufacturer of absorption refrigerators in RVs, however disagrees and claims that exemption 9 applies to RV specific refrigerators as it does to generic household refrigerators. In this respect, the consultants believe that there may be room for interpretation regarding this issue. For example, in the case of units manufactured for caravans, it is understood that most units are originally installed as part of the vehicle before its sale, whereas in some cases units are purchased separately and possibly installed by the user. To begin with, this means that the same units are available both to manufacturers of caravan vehicles as well as on the open market (i.e. available to the public), where it is not straightforward to conclude that they would only be used for their intended purpose (i.e., to be installed in vehicles). A more important aspect however seems to be the fate of such units at end-of-life, both in the case where the unit itself reaches EoL as well as in the case that the vehicle reaches EoL. In both of these cases it is understood that the unit would be dismantled from the vehicle and transferred to EoL treatment. When this is done by a vehicle dismantling facility, it is assumed that the unit is subsequently sent directly to a suitable recycler. In parallel, when the dismantling is done by the end-user, it is assumed that the unit would be seen as EEE and would be transferred to a Waste-EEE handling facility, subsequently also reaching a suitable recycler. Though the fate in both cases may be similar, the allocation of the unit at EoL to the EEE waste stream would suggest that the scope of articles falling under the RoHS Directive may be wider than suggested by Dometic. As it is assumed that in any case articles would be sent to treatment by a recycler of other refrigeration units (i.e., EEE recycler and not ELV recycler), the consultants conclude that the RoHS restrictions should apply as their original intention was to prevent and limit the presence of certain substances in the EEE waste stream. All the more so as the RoHS Directive restricts the use of additional substances in comparison with the ELV Directive. This logic is all the more applicable to units used for medical purposes, as long as they would not be excluded for example as large scale fixed installations (see Article 4(2)(e)). This is assumed as, medical devices fall under the scope of the RoHS Directive in any case. That said, it should be noted that only medical devices falling under the scope of the Medical Devices Directives (see RoHS Article 3(21-23)) would be considered as medical devices (Cat. 8) under RoHS, with others still falling

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 577

under Cat. 1. Even if refrigeration units would be covered by these Directives, the applicability of the RoHS restrictions would only be delayed in comparison with articles of category 1. To conclude, the consultant interprets that a wider range of absorption refrigerators would be under the scope of the RoHS Directive and would need to comply with the substance restrictions, provided they have at least one electrical function and can thus be considered as EEE according to the Article 3(1 and 2) definitions.

26.5.6 Exemption Wording Formulation Taking into account the considerations in the scope of the exemption as discussed above and the road map for substitution as provided by Dometic, a split of the exemption is proposed in light of the stepwise approach to substitution communicated by Dometic. The consultants understand that CrVI shall be phased out within three years in the low boiler temperature applications that are run only on electrical supply in stable and favourable ambient conditions. An exemption for such applications would thus only require a three years duration as originally requested by the applicant. The proposed split of the exemption was discussed with the applicant to ensure a precise wording. As a criterion to distinguish the different applications, it was discussed with the applicant if the boiling temperature could be used as e.g. done in Dometic’s application for authorization under REACH because the internal corrosion increases significantly with the boiling temperature. However Dometic1519 stated that the boiling temperature varies significantly with the ambient conditions and the heat load of the cooling unit and that market control of boiling temperature would be difficult. The consultants proposed to describe the first split of the exemption via the energy source (“absorption refrigerators designed to operate with electrical heater only”). This is also understood to be a practicable solution from a market surveillance perspective. Dometic1520 then proposed a shorter duration for this split of the exemption for 2 ½ year until 1 January 2019. Though the consultants understand that Dometic assumes that this period shall suffice, possibly giving it a short termed advantage over competitors when the exemption expires, the consultants do not support this change. In the past review, industry requested to renew the exemption for additional 5 years, anticipating that substitution would be completed within this period. It is observed that the research and development of substitutes required additional time, currently leading to the request of an additional period. Dometic now request to shorten the exemption duration by 6 months. The consultants do not see this period as significant, whereas it shall provide a short termed margin for implementing substitutes, should the process be a bit longer than expected. The consultants propose to keep the original three years to ensure that substitution is reached by at least one manufacturer at this time so that a further

1519 Dometic (2016b), Dometic (2016b), email communication, submitted 12.02.2016 1520 Dometic (2016c), Dometic (2016c), email communication, submitted 22.02.2016.

578

extension of this exemption in 2019 is not necessary. However if the EU COM sees this differently, the duration could be shortened, ending on 1 January 2019. It has to be noted that this first split of the exemption would also be in line with the recommendation of ECHA RAC SEAC1521 where SEAC recommends the authorisation for the use of sodium chromate be limited to the high boiler temperature product range only after 2019. As for the products with higher boiler temperatures, though the applicant has not requested a separate renewal for these articles, it is the opinion of the consultants that it is not conclusive if indeed all other articles are excluded from the scope of RoHS or not. From the additional information it is understood that substitution is underway in these articles, but expected to take a longer period. It would therefore be recommended to provide an exemption for a longer term for such applications, in order to reliably ensure substitution.

26.5.7 Conclusions Article 5(1)(a) provides that an exemption can be justified if at least one of the following criteria is fulfilled: · their elimination or substitution via design changes or materials and components which do not require any of the materials or substances listed in Annex II is scientifically or technically impracticable; · the reliability of substitutes is not ensured; · the total negative environmental, health and consumer safety impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the total environmental, health and consumer safety benefits thereof. From the available information it is observed that a substitute has become available as such. However, redesign and testing of absorption refrigerators is still in process and shall require at least a few more years. The implementation of the substitute is expected to differ for various applications of the product range of absorption refrigerators (i.e., those operated only with electricly powered heaters and those operated with other sources sources of energy), depending over all on the boiler temperature. The consultants appreciate the applicant’s proposal of a shorter time frame of three years for low boiler temperature applications. However, as some products with higher boiler temperatures may fall under the scope of RoHS, a split of the exemption is proposed in order to differentiate the technical practicability of substitutes and to ensure its reliability in different applications, including where this is expected to take more than three years. To conclude against the Article 5(1)(a) criteria:

1521 Op. cit. ECHA RAC SEAC (2016)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 579

· Research conducted by Dometic did not result in reliable possibilities via design changes, coatings or materials; however an alternative anti-corrosion agent has been developed. · Establishing tThe reliability of the identified substitute needs additional time to complete further testing, the re-design of components in different models and the development of factory equipment for absorption refrigerators with a heater running exclusively on electricity in low boiler temperature applications (140-180°C). Substitution in other applications with a higher boiler temperature is expected to require a longer period. The time frame indicated by Dometic for these products to be launched on the market is 2025. However, exemptions for category 1 devices can only be granted for up to five years, at which time a revision of the further need of the exemption for these applications would allow evaluating whether inhibitor #7 has been successfully applied as a substitute or whether additional time would be needed.

26.6 Recommendation It can be understood that a substitute has been discovered, however that additional time is needed to allow a phase-out of CrVI where used as anti-corrosion agent in absorption refrigerator units. This time shall allow necessary redesign of equipment and the completion of reliability testing and may differ for various units understood to be part of the product range. Assuming that the REACH authorisation requested by Dometic shall be granted and assuming that Entries 28-30 of REACH Annex XVII do not apply to sodium chromate when used as a cooling solution in the carbon steel structure of absorption refrigerator cooling units, the consultants conclude that the exemption is justified based on the Article 5(1)(a) criteria. In this case, the consultants recommend splitting the current exemption to differentiate between different products according to the time estimated to be required to complete substitution as follows: Exemption 9 Duration* Hexavalent chromium as an anticorrosion agent applied in carbon steel cooling systems of absorption refrigerators of applications:

(I) designed to operate with electrical heater only, with up to 0,75 % by weight in the cooling solution; For Cat. 1: 21.7.2019 (II) designed to operate with variable energy sources; (three years) (III) designed to operate with other than an electrical heater

Should the REACH authorisation requested by Dometic not be granted, the RoHS exemption could only be granted until the 21.9.2017 (i.e. the sunset date specified in REACH Annex XIV) so as not to weaken the protection afforded by the REACH Regulation. In this case the consultants would recommend maintaining the current formulation as both product groups are expected to still need the exemption until this date.

580

Should Entries 28-30 of REACH Annex XVII apply in this case, the renewal of an exemption would weaken the protection afforded by the REACH Regulation and thus could not be granted according to Article 5(1)(a). The consultants’ do not see a need to grant the exemption to Cat. 8 and Cat. 9 equipment, as the exemption formulation clearly limits the applicability to products falling under Cat. 1. Nonetheless, as for exemptions listed in Annex III, for which an expiration date is not specified, it is understood that from a legal point of view, they shall be valid for applications of Cat. 8 and Cat. 9 for up to 7 years. This validity period is understood to start from the dates specified in Article 4(3), from when these categories come into the scope of the Directive. Thus, if from a formal-legal point of view the original formulation of the exemption needs to remain valid for these categories for the specified duration, the following formulation would be recommended:

Exemption 9 Duration* (III) Hexavalent chromium as an anticorrosion agent of the For Cat. 8 and 9: 21 July 2021; carbon steel cooling system in absorption refrigerators up to For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: 21 July 2023; 0,75 % by weight in the cooling solution For Sub-Cat 9 industrial: 21 July 2024

26.7 References Exemption 9 Dometic (2015a), Original Application for Exemption Renewal Request, submitted 20.01.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_9 /9_150120_RoHS_V_Application_Form_Dometic.pdf Dometic (2015b), Answers to Clarification Questions, submitted 13.08.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_9 /20150813_Ex_9_Dometic_replay_on_questions.pdf Dometic (2015c), Dometic GmbH, Analysis of Alternatives and Socio-Economic Analysis, available under http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/0783ee3a-7de9-45ec- a72a-c1689ee49e09 Dometic (2016a), Answers to 2nd round of Clarification Questions, submitted 13.01.2016. Dometic (2016b), Email communication, submitted 12.02.2016. Dometic (2016c), Email communication, submitted 22.02.2016. ECHA RAC SEAC (2016) ECHA’s Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) and Committee for Socio-economic Analysis (SEAC), Opinion on an Application for Authorisation for Sodium chromate use: The use of sodium chromate as an anticorrosion agent of the carbon steel cooling system in absorption refrigerators up to 0.75% by weight (Cr6+) in the cooling solution, Consolidated version, 1 February 2016; http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/5a39678c-4e9a-42bc-878c-8997c74caeba

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 581

Gensch, et al. (2009) Carl-Otto Gensch, Oeko-Institut e. V., et al., 20 February 2009, Adaptation to scientific and technical progress under Directive 2002/95/EC: Final Report. With the assistance of Stéphanie Zangl, Rita Groß, Anna Weber, Oeko-Institut e. V. and Otmar Deubzer, Fraunhofer IZM. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/final_reportl_rohs1_en.pdf TMC (2015) Test & Measurement Coalition, Contribution by Test & Measurement Coalition, submitted 19 October 2015, available under http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_1 _a- e_/General_Contribution_Test___Measurement_Coalition_package_9_exemptions_2 0151016.pdf Thetford (2016a), Information provided by Thetford by Email, submitted 9 February 2016 Thetford (2016b), Information provided by Thetford by Email, submitted 16 February 2016

582

29.0 Exemption 21: "Lead and cadmium in printing inks for the application of enamels on glasses, such as borosilicate and soda lime glasses”

Declaration In the sections that precede the “Critical Review” the phrasings and wordings of stake- holders’ explanations and arguments have been adopted from the documents provided by the stakeholders as far as required and reasonable in the context of the evaluation at hand. Formulations have been altered in cases where it was necessary to maintain the readability and comprehensibility of the text. These sections are based exclusively on information provided by applicants and stakeholders, unless otherwise stated.

Acronyms and Definitions Cd Cadmium CMH Ceramic Metal Halide EEE Electrical and Electronic Equipment HGT Hecker Glastechnik GmbH & Co KG HID High-intensity discharge [lamps] HPS High Pressure Sodium IRL Irlbacher Blickpunkt Glas GmbH (IRL) LEU Lighting Europe PAR Parabolic aluminized reflector Pb Lead QMH Quartz Metal Halide TL(s) Tubular lamps

636

29.1 Background LightingEurope (LEU)1646 has requested the renewal of Ex. 21 to ensure that lead and cadmium can further be used in printing inks applied as enamels to glass, such as borosilicate and soda lime glasses. LEU1647 explains that lead is used in printing inks applied to glass, and provides a durable product marking especially on the glass bulb of lamps. The durability is important to maintain the legibility of product markings throughout product-lifetime, as required by legislations and product safety standards. Though lead-free ink solutions have been found, LEU claims that they cannot be effectively utilized in all situations with the required mark quality, and provide the following example (see Figure 29-1) to demonstrate the difference.

Figure 29 -1: Examples of lead-containing and lead-free marking

Source LEU (2015a)

Thus, LEU requests the exemption be renewed with the following wording and with the maximum duration, and further specify that the exemption renewal is requested for Category 5 articles on which the inks are used (e.g. lamps): “Lead and cadmium in printing inks for the application of enamels on glasses, such as borosilicate and soda lime glasses” LEU did not provide argumentation for the use of lead based inks in other applications aside from lamps, nor in relation to the need to renew the exemption for the use of Cd in

1646 LEU (2015a), LightingEurope, Request to renew Exemption 21 under the RoHS Directive 2011/65/EU Lead and cadmium in printing inks for the application of enamels on glasses, such as borosilicate and soda lime glasses, submitted 15.1.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_21/21_LE_RoHS_Exe mption_Req_Final.pdf 1647 Op. cit. LEU (2015a)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 637

inks used for the application of enamels on glasses. In a later communication LEU1648 thus agreed that the exemption could be limited to the use of Pb in ink, and proposed the following exemption formulation: “Lead in printing inks for the application of enamels on glasses” LEU1649 further explains that the exemption is relevant for use of lead in inks used on both mentioned types of glass, i.e. borosilicate and soda lime glass, and also on quartz glass.

29.1.1 Amount of Lead Used under the Exemption LEU1650 estimates the amount of lead placed on the EU market through lead based inks used for lamp marking in relation to some of the relevant lamp types: · Double capped fluorescent lamps: the total amount of lead on the stamp in Tubular lamps (TLs) placed on the EU market is approximately 20 kg1651 lead per annum. · The total amount of lead in high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps and parabolic aluminized reflector (PAR) lamps placed on the market per annum in Europe is less than 0.5 kg. · For other lamps mentioned, LEU states that the amounts of Pb are very low. LEU explains these estimations to be calculated by multiplying the volumes of lamps placed on the market with lead-containing marking with the estimated average amount of lead used per stamp (depending on mark size and text).1652

29.2 Description of Requested Exemption LEU1653 explains that lead is used in inks, which are applied to lamp glass for marking purposes. Among others, such inks are used to mark fluorescent tubes, PAR lamps and HID lamps like High Pressure Sodium (HPS), Quartz Metal Halide (QMH) and Ceramic Metal Halide (CMH). In a later communication LEU1654 explains that the request concerns in general lamps where the lamp stamp is located on the glass material (e.g. tube or bulb) including: linear and (non) linear fluorescent lamps (e.g. T5, T8, T12), high pressure sodium lamps,

1648 LEU (2015b), LightingEurope, Answers to 1st Questionnaire Exemption No. 21 (renewal request), submitted 10.8.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_21/20150810_Ex_21_ LightingEurope_Answers_to_1st_Clarification-Questions.pdf 1649 Op. cit. LEU (2015b) 1650 Op. cit. LEU (2015a) 1651 This value was stated as 2 kg in LEU (2015a) but later corrected in LEU (2015b) to 20 kg. 1652 Op. cit. LEU (2015b) 1653 Op. cit. LEU (2015a) 1654 Op. cit. LEU (2015b)

638

ceramic metal halide lamps, quartz metal halide lamps, PAR lamps, incandescent lamps for special purposes (exempted from 244/2009) and halogen lamps (low and mains voltage). It is elaborated that there is currently no expectation that such lamps are to be phased out in the coming years. Nonetheless, LEU1655 has mentioned that the focus of the current lighting industry is on the further development of LED technology and that an extension of the exemption will have no negative effect on the efforts to further innovate in LED. Lead is needed to make a mark on the soda lime glass that durably stays on the lamp throughout the lifetime of the lamp. Lead helps the marking ink to fuse into the glass surface. The ink has to adhere to the glass within a few seconds without being damaged in the course of other manufacturing processes. In the black ink, a so called lead- containing glass frit is used as adhesion compound to the glass. In the green (lead-free) ink an aluminium phosphate is used for the adhesion to the glass. 1656 In a later communication, LEU adds that “Lead-containing ink is not only limited to the black colour inks, it is also used in silver/golden coloured stamps. The ink recipe is completely the same for the silver/golden stamp colours…The printing ink composition can be very much dependant on manufacturing and lamp marking process, hence not solely related to lamp stamp colour. Different lamp marking colours are also used to execute proper market communication and product positioning strategy by various manufacturers”.1657 Lead is one of the components in the low melting glass (enamel), which is in turn a component in the ink. This enamel has a very low softening point due to the presence of lead, which is needed to adhere the pigment particles in the ink to the bulb glass of the lamp, without affecting the lamp bulb glass itself, during the fixation process of the marking to the lamp bulb glass, which is carried out at elevated temperatures.1658 LightingEurope1659 is of the opinion that the question whether glass marked with pigment particles embedded in enamel is considered as homogeneous material is not resolved completely. Hence, since the marking cannot be removed by mechanical abrasive means LightingEurope considers the marked glass as homogenous material. This was the position of ELC some years ago when the exemption was extended from borosilicate glass to all type of (lamp) glasses. This exemption gave legal certainty to manufacturers, supply chain and authorities. According to LEU1660, the marking has several functions, during the entire life cycle:

1655 Op. cit. LEU (2015a) 1656 Op. cit. LEU (2015a) 1657 LEU (2016a), LightingEurope, Answers to 2nd round of clarification questions, submitted per email on 29.1.2016 1658 Op. cit. LEU (2015b) 1659 Op. cit. LEU (2015b) 1660 Op. cit. LEU (2015b)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 639

· To identify the producer (a.o. brand and “Made in …”); · To identify lamp type and wattage, which is relevant for safety, correct lamp replacement and recycling; · CE, WEEE marking. LEU then elaborates: “Product identification is legally required for CE Marking according to the LVD Directive (2006/95/EC). A list of harmonized standards falling under this directive is published in OJEU as 2015/C 125/02. For instance, the marking requirement for linear fluorescent lamps is given in safety standard EN61195 in clause 2.2.1. Moreover, marking of lamps at the end of life is also required by the WEEE Directive (2002/96/EC)… marking of lamps must fulfil criteria set by standards and regulations, among others related to safety directive, WEEE and information essential for lamp identification must be visible during the entire service life. For example on straight fluorescent lamps, the lamp glass is the only place where this labelling on the product itself is possible, due to limited space and regulated size on marking on any other visible component such as lamp base (cap). Product identification must be legible for the consumer or other stakeholders during the entire life cycle of the product (safety, replacement, recycling etc.). Intensive heat and light during lamp operations result in quality challenges for the marking of a lamp. Some luminaries state maximum wattage in order to avoid excessive heat. If a mark is not properly legible for the user, the user might place the wrong lamp into a luminaire with the consequence of a high safety risk. Maximum lamp temperatures may differ per lamp type and application. For example, clause 2.9.1 in EN61195 for linear fluorescent lamps states that maximum cap temperature rise can vary from 55 to 95K depending on the specific product type. It also has to be considered that a lamp can be used for a certain period of time, exchanged against another lamp in an existing application but still not at end of life. If this lamp is used again, packaging and other product description are no longer available, hence general product designations are important to be present on the lamp.” 1661

1661 Op. cit. LEU (2015a)

640

29.3 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption

29.3.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances LEU1662 claims that lead-free ink solutions (green ink using aluminium phosphate) have been found, but they cannot be effectively utilized in all situations with the required mark quality yet. Damaging of the marking (i.e. affecting legibility) can already appear during processing of the lamps. LEU provides examples of lamps marked with lead based and lead-free inks to demonstrate the difference in durability (see Figure 29-1). As it is explained that lamp marking is required by various legislations and standards, the phasing out of lead-based inks could hinder marking in some cases: “some companies from LightingEurope cannot always apply the required stamp in all situations”. As for the possibility of using lead-free inks in all applications (e.g., green ink) in a later communication, LEU1663 states that “The usage of lead in ink is very much related to the manufacturing process, especially where in this process lamp marking is located [i.e. at what stage of manufacture the marking is applied – consultants comment]. When the marking is executed at the beginning of the production process, marking has to survive all further process steps, before the lamp leaves manufacturing line. In most lamp production lines the lead-free marking does not survive these next process steps between marking and fixation of the ink and the mark is not readable anymore. Due to that reason in T8/T12 lamps … lead based inks are used. When lamp marking process is located at the end of production line (e.g. T5 manufacturing) and different printing technology is used (e.g. pad printing), opportunity to use lead-free black ink exists. Existing manufacturing lines cannot be easily switched from (older) printing method (at the beginning of the lamp). This is only possible with high investment costs for such machines. Complete new printing equipment has to be installed for T8 and T12 lamps.”

29.3.2 Possible Alternatives for Eliminating RoHS Substances LEU1664 explains that marking the glass with etching/engraving does not seem to be technically feasible due to cracks. Further alternatives of ink marking that would eliminate the need for using lead based inks were not mentioned.

29.3.3 Environmental Arguments LEU1665 explains that lamps are in the scope of EU Directives 2002/96/EC - WEEE and 2012/19/EU – WEEE Recast. All lamps need to be collected and recycled, regardless if they use lead-free or lead-based inks for the marking. Take back systems are installed in all EU Member States to facilitate the collection and the proper handling of lamps at end-of-life (further details are given in the exemption renewal application dossier, but

1662 Op. cit. LEU (2015b) 1663 Op. cit. LEU (2016a) 1664 Op. cit. LEU (2015b) 1665 Op. cit. LEU (2015a)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 641

are not detailed here as they concern lamps in general and do not provide specific details as to the fate of Pb from ink markings of lamps).

29.3.4 Socio-economic Impact of Substitution LEU1666 claims that substitution of lead based inks would result in socio-economic costs including an increase in fixed costs and possible social impacts within and external to the EU. After being asked to detail such possible costs, LEU1667 elaborated that the impact on fixed costs is related to development needs and consequently possible changes to production equipment and processes. The social impact however is related to potential job losses if proper alternatives cannot be secured and the exemption (at the same time) is not granted.

29.4 Stakeholder Contributions Three contributions were made to the stakeholder consultation. The Test and Measurement Coalition (TMC)1668 includes the seven leading companies in the sector representing roughly 60% of the global production of industrial test and measurement products. It is TMC’s understanding that according to the RoHS Directive, the exemptions listed in Annex III and Annex IV for which no expiry date has been specified, apply to sub-category 9 industrial with a validity period of 7 years, starting from 22 July 2017. This is also said to be explained in the RoHS FAQ, p. 26 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/pdf/faq.pdf. TMC, thus does not interpret the current exemption evaluation related to package 9 to concern category 9 industrial equipment and has not provided exemption specific information. Irlbacher Blickpunkt Glas GmbH (IRL)1669 is a manufacturer of technical glasses, e.g. control panels, for various applications (white goods, lightning, laboratory, medicine, sanitary industry, and others). IRL explains that among the manufacturing processes applied, the application of lead- and cadmium-containing inks on glasses like borosilicate, soda lime glasses and others are sometimes involved. Subsequently a high- temperature process is applied for enamelling. Inks used by IRL for enamelling glass may contain both lead and cadmium and thus the stakeholder suggests not changing the current exemption wording formulation. Inks for enamelling glasses are explained to contain glass frits, high temperature stable pigments and additives like solvents.

1666 Op. cit. LEU (2015a) 1667 Op. cit. LEU (2015b) 1668 TMC (2015), Test & Measurement Coalition, General comments related to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 16.10.2015, available under http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_1_a- e_/General_Contribution_Test___Measurement_Coalition_package_9_exemptions_20151016.pdf 1669 IRL (2015a), Irlbacher Blickpunkt Glas GmbH, Reply to Consultation Questionnaire Exemption No. 21 (renewal request), submitted 7.10.2915, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_21/Reply_to_Consult ation_Questionnaire_Exemption_No._21_online.pdf

642

Whereas the latter will be removed1670 during the enamelling process, glass frits and pigments will form a permanent connection with the glass, i.e. the substrate which was coated by the ink. Those inks may not only by used for marking lamps, but also for the decoration of (flat) glasses like soda-lime and borosilicate glasses (see Figure 29-2). In the latter case, inks will be applied on glasses for creating custom-built designs like logos or for the positioning of buttons, just to name a few examples. Glasses with lead- and cadmium-containing enamels are used in different fields of application, like household appliances, lighting equipment, medical devices, industrial instruments and others.

Figure 29 -2: Example of decoration of borosilicate glass with black ink.

Source: IRL (2015a)

IRL1671 confirm that lead-free alternatives are available on the market, but explain that they have some disadvantages which exclude their application for the decoration of (flat) glasses. First of all, and most crucial, the adhesion on the glass will be drastically reduced when using lead-free inks (Figure 29-3). Beside this there are some reasons, like higher enamelling temperature or reduced opacity, which contradict a stable and environmentally friendly process control. The opacity of lead-free inks is also explained to be too low to allow a replacement of lead-containing inks.

1670 This is assumed to mean that the solvents evaporate during the process of application – consultant’s comment. 1671 Op. cit. IRL (2015a)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 643

Figure 29 -3: Comparison of lead-free (left) and lead-containing (right) ink. On the left side the ink shows a so called “chipping”, i.e. peeling off from the substrate (borosilicate glass).

Source: (IRL (2015a)

IRL further explains that besides lead-containing glass frits, cadmium may be used in the pigment-component of inks. For the production of bright colourings, e.g. yellow, red or orange (see Figure 29-4) it is indispensable to use pigments with cadmium containing compounds. There are no alternatives available. Cadmium-free inks are not available for the production of bright colourings, thus cadmium-based pigments are essential. The stakeholder does not suppose the invention of cadmium-free equivalents in the future. Figure 29 -4: Enamels on borosilicate glass giving bright yellow (left) or orange (right) colourings

Source: (IRL (2015a)

644

IRL further contends that to the best of its knowledge, there are no ongoing research initiatives at present. In case of potential future research projects the adhesion as well as the opacity should be the major focus for the substitution of lead in inks. Lead-free inks could be used if significant improvement in adhesion and opacity can be obtained. Based on IRLs opinion cadmium cannot be removed from inks for enamelling glasses at present. A second contribution was made by Hecker Glastechnik GmbH & Co KG (HGT)1672, explained to be a specialist for heat-resistant and safety glass. HGT is a make-to-order supplier for the industry. HGT is a manufacturer of glass for lighting applications and technical products (e.g. glass for lighting, medical technologies, engineering and household and bath appliances as well as glass for automation). HGT’s contribution outlines the same aspects raised in the IRL contribution, and are thus not repeated here. In short, HGT also support the renewal of the exemption with its current formulation, allowing the use of both lead and cadmium in printing inks applied as enamels to glass.

29.5 Critical Review

29.5.1 REACH Compliance - Relation to the REACH Regulation Appendix A.1.0 of this report lists various entries in the REACH Regulation annexes that restrict the use of lead and cadmium in various articles and uses. Entry 23 of Annex XVII of REACH restricts the use of Cd in application. Paragraph 1 regards various materials that can be summarised as plastic materials, thus not relevant for this exemption which relates to the use of Cd in ink enamels used on glass. Use in metal plating, in brazing fillers and in metal parts (jewellery, beads) is also restricted in later paragraphs, but understood not to be relevant to the application at hand. However, according to Paragraph 2 of Entry 23, Cd: “2. Shall not be used in paints [3208] [3209]. For paints with a zinc content exceeding 10 % by weight of the paint, the concentration of cadmium (expressed as Cd metal) shall not be equal to or greater than 0,1 % by weight. Painted articles shall not be placed on the market if the concentration of cadmium (expressed as Cd metal) is equal to or greater than 0,1 % by weight of the paint on the painted article.” This article is understood only to apply to paints with a zinc content above 10%. This is understood not to apply to the enamelling inks.

1672 HGT (2015a), Hecker Glastechnik GmbH & Co KG, Reply to Consultation Questionnaire Exemption No. 21 (renewal request), submitted 13.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_21/HGT_Reply_to_Co nsultation_Questionnaire_Exemption_No__21.pdf

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 645

Entry 28 and entry 30 in Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation, stipulate that various cadmium compounds and lead compounds shall not be placed on the market, or used, as substances, constituents of other substances, or in mixtures for supply to the general public. In the consultants’ understanding, the restriction for substances under Entry 28 and Entry 30 of Annex XVII does not apply to the use of cadmium and lead in this application. Cd and Pb used in inks applied to glasses, in the consultants’ point of view is not a supply of cadmium or lead and its compounds as a substance, mixture or constituent of other mixtures to the general public. Cd and/or Pb are encapsulated in a vitreous enamel material which is part of an article and as such, entry 28 and entry 30 of Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation would not apply. Entry 63 of REACH Annex XVII restricts the use of lead and its compounds in jewellery and also in “articles supplied to the general public, if the concentration of lead (expressed as metal) in those articles or accessible parts thereof is equal to or greater than 0.05 % by weight, and those articles or accessible parts thereof may, during normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use, be placed in the mouth by children”. Though it is possible that some articles for which the current exemption is relevant may fall under this restriction, Paragraph 8(d) of Annex XVII excludes from the aforementioned restriction “(d) enamels, defined as vitrifiable mixtures resulting from the fusion, vitrification or sintering of mineral melted at a temperature of at least 500°C;” from the restriction. As the enamels used in the applications relevant for the exemption are understood to be fused to the glass article, this exclusion would be understood to apply, as long as the application process occurs at a temperature which is above 500°C. In parallel, the lead restriction within REACH Annex XVII entry 63 provides, under Paragraph 8(k), for an exclusion of articles in the scope of various Directives, among others specifying Directive 2011/65/EU (RoHS 2). Thus, it is understood that regardless of the enamelling temperature that this restriction would not apply, leaving the regulatory process entirely to RoHS. This aligns with a communication from the European Commission on the relationship between RoHS and REACH: “in those situations in which the RoHS restriction generally takes into account the protection of human health and the environment, at all stages, similarly to REACH restrictions, the latter should exclude EEE from their scope of application, indicating that the use of the substance in question in EEE is restricted by the RoHS Directive.”1673 No other entries, relevant for the use of cadmium and lead in the requested exemption could be identified in Annex XIV and Annex XVII (status February 2016). Based on the current status of Annexes XIV and XVII of the REACH Regulation, the requested exemption would not weaken the environmental and health protection

1673 European Commission (date not specified) REACH AND DIRECTIVE 2011/65/EU (RoHS): A COMMON UNDERSTANDING, http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/5804/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native

646

afforded by the REACH Regulation. Where this is the case, an exemption could be granted for the use of Cd and for the use of Pb if other criteria of Art. 5(1)(a) apply.

29.5.2 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution LightingEurope explains that lead is present in printing inks applied in lamp marking as enamels to borosilicate, soda lime glass, and also to quartz glass, specifying that its presence is relevant in inks of black, silver and gold colour. LEU admits that other inks exist, such as green coloured inks, which are lead-free and which can be applied in some cases, however elaborates that this depends on the stage of lamp production at which the marking is applied. It can be understood that when the marking is applied towards the end of the lamp production process, green inks (lead-free) are suitable, making the use of lead-based inks unnecessary. In contrast however, when the marking is applied at the beginning of the production process, the lamp parts are still to go through the various production stages, and thus the durability of lead-free inks does not suffice. Though LEU does not expect the production of lamps using the lead-based marking to be phased out in the coming years, changing the printing methods used in the processes and/or their location at the beginning or end of the process is explained not to be practical; existing manufacturing lines cannot be easily switched from (older) printing methods located at the beginning of the lamp production process, as this would require high investment costs for such machines. Two manufacturers, of technical glasses (IRL) and of heat-resistant and safety glasses (HGT) further explain that the exemption is also needed for applying lead- and cadmium- containing inks on glasses like borosilicate, soda lime glasses and others. Subsequent to application, they explain that a high-temperature process is applied for enamelling. Inks are understood to be used for decorative applications and in some cases also for applying safety warnings. For Cd based inks it is explained that the main function of the Cd is in enabling the production of inks of specific hues, e.g., of different tones of red, orange and yellow. Lead in contrast is explained to be important as an ingredient of printing inks of different colours, as it allows reducing the enamelling temperature, and further increases the adhesion of inks to glass, the durability and the opacity of markings. In relation to Pb, HGT1674 provides further detail as to the properties provided by lead, for which Pb-free inks are not yet comparable: · Adhesion depends on the thermal expansion coefficient (α) of the substrate = glass. Pb-free inks do not adhere to substrates with a very low α. · The enamelling temperature of the ink to the glass is approximately 50K higher for Pb-free versions (the exact value depends on various parameters like colour/hue, the kind of substrate, etc.). For some substrates the

1674 Op. cit. HGT (2016a)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 647

enamelling temperature cannot be increased arbitrarily as defects would be introduced [i.e. to the glass - consultant’s addition]. · Durability of ink markings - according to HGT’s experience, Pb-free versions are less stable towards hydrolytic weathering (hydrolytic class is reduced by approximately 1-2). · Opacity of ink markings - the values depend on various parameters, but in one comparison (black Pb-containing ink vs. Pb-free ink) printed by HGT, the absorbance decreases from ~3 to <2 (values at 600nm). IRL1675 have also provided information supporting these statements. IRL further explains that the addition of Pb simultaneously affects all of the properties mentioned above. In contrast to the use of Cd, the use of Pb in inks is not related to colour, but it is a constituent (in terms of lead oxide) in the glassy component of the ink and thus affects the properties mentioned above. Consequently, it is not only used in black hues, although this is the most used colour. Generally Pb can be added independently of colour to improve the properties mentioned above. The following detail is given in relation to the properties above: · Adhesion – “the range of α is typically ~0 K-1 (so called glass ceramics, heat- resistant glass) to ~3 10-6 K-1 (borosilicate glass) to ~9 10-6 K-1 (sodalime glass). · The enamelling temperature for Pb-free inks is ~700 °C; for Pb-containing inks it is ~650 °C1676. Temperatures above 650°C would damage the substrate, i.e. various errors like surface failures up to complete breakdown of the substrate can occur. · Durability is a basic requirement which permits the use of an ink for the decoration of glass. In this case durability means all aspects of resistance against attacks like mechanical (abrasion) or chemical (hydrolysis, acidic or basic corrosion, all kinds of solvents, etc.) attacks.” · In relation to opacity, “Absorbance (A) is defined as A = -log10 T, where T is the transmission. A and T depend on wavelength, and 600 nm was meant as an example for a specific wavelength in the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Absorbance is a measure for the opacity of an ink.” In this sense it can be understood that where Pb is used in inks applied to glass for applications other than lamps, that the various properties that it enables in the applied enamel are of importance. The stakeholders explain that Pb-free enamels do not provide comparable performance where these properties are concerned, while also requiring enamelling at higher temperatures.

1675 Op. cit. IRL (2016a) 1676 In the original document the sentence referred in both instances to Pb-free inks. This was corrected in an email communication from 16.02.2016 sent by IRL and HGT.

648

In parallel, however, it can be understood that a substitute has been developed that would at least provide sufficient performance for some applications. Schott AG have registered patent number DE 102014101140 A11677 for a glass flux-based coating substrate, detailing the glass flux material and the method for coating a glass or glass ceramic substrate . It is explained that for the preparation of heat resistant transparent layers (as well as other components, e.g., bottles, pipes, etc.), glasses with low thermal expansion coefficients are used, particularly borosilicate glasses and aluminosilicate glasses. In some applications, such glasses are coated, at least in part, for example with black or white ink, used to create frame forms or for applying text to the glass. The use of conventional glass flow-based coatings on glasses with a low thermal expansion coefficient is not optimal in light of thermal expansion coefficient differences. In such cases a thin layer can be applied, but this does not suffice for producing a sufficiently opaque layer. This is particularly true for lead-free glass-flow materials. Lead-free examples are detailed, which have various disadvantages (an enamelling temperature above 750°C, which is too high for borosilicate glasses; high thermal expansion coefficients, which do not allow thicker and thus also opaque layers; resulting coatings are not sufficiently durable with regard to chemical resistance). For this reason a lead- free alternative was developed with a low thermal expansion coefficient that achieves an opaque application with a high abrasion and chemical resistance (durability). It can also be understood that the softening temperature of the developed substitute is below 680°C, and can be as low as 650°C in some cases. Schott AG were thus contacted and asked for information to allow a comparison of the development with lead-based inks. Schott AG1678 explains that the glass-flow coating has currently been developed with black, blue and white hues. The coating has been adapted for borofloat glasses, with an adhesion close to α=3.3. Schott AG states: “Generally speaking we can say that we have (over)achieved same performance as enamels containing Pb, with regards to opacity, durability and adhesion, this was a clear target for the development of this enamel.” The development is understood to already be applied in products made available on the EU market (2 home appliance customers in Europe with >50k pieces per annum). Schott AG has not yet decided if to make the glass-flow coating available to third parties, however it does not foresee a problem to fulfil the potential demand for such inks in applications on glasses in the EU, should the exemption not be renewed.

1677 Schott AG (2015), Schott AG, Registered Patent DE 102014101140 A1 for “Mit einer glasflussbasierten Beschichtung versehenes Substrat, Glasflussmaterial sowie Verfahren zur Beschichtung eines Glas- oder Glaskeramiksubstrats, published 30.7.2015, available under: http://google.com/patents/DE102014101140A1?cl=de&hl=de 1678 Schott AG (2016a), Schott AG, Answers to Questions Related to DE 102014101140 A1 in the Context of RoHS Annex III Exemption 21, submitted per email on 22.2.2016.

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 649

29.5.3 Environmental Arguments LEU has provided some information related to the treatment of lamps with Pb-based markings at end of life. As this aspect is not understood to be directly related to the justification for the exemption, it is not discussed here.

29.5.4 Stakeholder Contributions Three contributions were submitted to the stakeholder consultation. Contributions of HGT and IRL are discussed in the sections above as well as below. The contribution submitted by TMC raises a legal question as to the availability of the current exemption to Category 9 equipment. The current exemption is not specific to a certain product or component, but only to the application of certain materials (enamels) on glass. Such applications may be used in Cat. 9 products (or in Cat. 8 products), and this is also raised by HGT and IRL who refer to medical and laboratory applications among others. In this sense the consultants interpret the contribution as support for the exemption, and note that a change in the wording formulation could affect articles falling under categories 8 and 9.

29.5.5 The Scope of the Exemption LightingEurope originally applied for the exemption with a formulation as currently appears in Annex III of the RoHS Directive: “Lead and cadmium in printing inks for the application of enamels on glasses, such as borosilicate and soda lime glasses” In contrast, their provided argumentation only concerns the application of Pb in printing inks applied as enamel to certain glasses, and thus after being asked, it was confirmed that where lamp marking was concerned, that the exemption could be limited to Pb. In parallel, LEU specified that in lamps, Pb-based printing inks could be applied in markings on borosilicate and soda lime glass, as well as on quartz glass, which was not originally included in the exemption formulation. Prior to the stakeholder consultation, they thus proposed an adjusted formulation, which is understood to cover applications for which LEU has requested the exemption renewal: “Lead in printing inks for the application of enamels on glasses” In this sense, where the exemption is needed for lamp marking applications, these changes could be taken into consideration in order to restrict a possible renewal of the exemption to lead and to certain glass types where it is needed for lamps. In parallel, it is understood that the exemption is also needed for other types of applications. Since it can be understood that Cd is not needed for all printing ink colours and lead-free inks are available that could be applied in some cases, both HGT and IRL

650

were asked to further specify their information to allow a better understanding as to the scope of applications for which the exemption is needed. In relation to Cd, HGT1679 explains: “Some worldwide introduced logos like the logo of AEG, 3M, Sparkasse, Vodafone, Shell, Coca Cola, and a lot of others are presented in colour tones which cannot be printed with ceramic colours without Cadmium-containing pigments. To be more specific, most of the RAL colour tones from 1000 to 3031 are affected. Besides those customer-specific needs there are some standards which define the use of RAL colours. For example DIN 4844-2 defines the colours for warning signs, where black triangles are to be printed on a yellow (RAL 1003 “Signalgelb”) background. RAL 1003 can be printed by ceramic colours only by using Cadmium-containing inks”. To summarize, HGT claims that specific hues, for example RAL 3020 (“Verkehrsrot”) or RAL 1003 (“Signalgelb”) are not available in Cadmium-free versions. IRL have also specified these aspects in their response.1680 When asked whether these applications types can be considered exhaustive, IRL1681 stated that “there are plenty of other applications, for example printing of flags, the usage of a specific hue for filter glasses (i.e. the colour printed is opaque for a certain range of electromagnetic radiation) or any imaginable custom-specific design (e.g. a customer asks for colour which is identical to an existing housing etc.). Consequently IRL cannot give an exhaustive list of applications.” HGT1682 and IRL1683 further provide lists of hues (RAL specification) for which Cd-free alternatives are not available (See Appendix A.7.0). When requested to exhaustively detail standards specifying the use of Cd-based hues for certain applications (i.e. for safety related applications), HGT1684 provided Table 29-1, explained to give a link between several colours and corresponding standards, which require that colour. HGT however notes that the list is not exhaustive and believes there are many more standards, which they are not aware of: “Quite an important field of application, which is not regulated by any standard, is the realization of custom-specific designs: just to name two examples, RAL 2011 (dark-orange) is required for municipal vehicles and RAL 3003 (ruby red) for ambulance.”

1679 HGT (2016a), Hecker Glass Technik GmbH & Co KG, Answers to 1st round of clarification questions, submitted per email 18.1.2016 1680 IRL (2016a), Irlbacher Blickpunkt Glas GmbH, Answers to 1st round of clarification questions, submitted per email 18.1.2016 1681 Op. cit. IRL (2016a) 1682 Op. cit. HGT (2016a) 1683 Op. cit. IRL (2016a) 1684 Op. cit. HGT (2016a)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 651

Table 29 -1: Use of Cd-based printing inks on glass specified in standards:

HGT and IRL1685 provide more detail on such applications in a later communication. They explain that the use of the colours/ink is not limited to a specific application, and that they may be used inside and outside of the vehicle. The range of applications is said to be huge, with typical examples including printed signs on side windows (outside) or control panels/displays for electronic devices (inside). In the consultants’ opinion, not all of these additional applications would be covered by exemption 21. Uses for municipal vehicles and for ambulances are not understood to be covered by the exemption as these vehicles are not regulated under RoHS. If the statement regards equipment installed in these vehicles, some equipment may be RoHS regulated, assuming it is installed as a later addition to the vehicle and in this respect is also available to consumers on the market as equipment. If equipment is specifically designed for and installed only within these vehicles, it could be that it is excluded from the scope of RoHS through article 2(4)(c).1686 In any case, the consultants cannot follow why equipment within these vehicles would need to have a specific colour in order to

1685 HGT & IRL (2016a), Hecker Glass Technik GmbH & Co KG & Irlbacher Blickpunkt Glass GmbH, Reply to 3rd Round of Clarification Exemption No. 21 (renewal request), submitted per email 16.2.2016. 1686 Article 2(4)(c) of Directive 2011/65/EU (RoHS 2): “Equipment which is specifically designed, and is to be installed, as part of another type of equipment that is excluded or does not fall within the scope of this Directive, which can fulfil its function only if it is part of that equipment, and which can be replaced only by the same specifically designed equipment.”

652

fulfil their function. Furthermore, it is not clear how relevant “printing of flags” or custom-specific design would be, as it is assumed that not in all of these cases is the glass part of an EEE, whereas, only printing on glasses, which are part of an EEE are of concern to this request. Finally, for the use of “Cd and lead in filter glasses” more detail was requested. Cd in filter glasses is addressed by Ex. 13b, which was also recently subject to evaluation. In this sense, it is important to understand if and how the use of these substances in filter glasses to be used in EEE would differ from the scope of articles falling under Ex. 13b. HGT and IRL were thus asked to provide further detail and explained the following: “Such articles may fall under all categories of RoHS Annex I, depending on their application. Just to name a few examples filter glasses could be used in lighting applications and colour effect or food filter glasses.”1687 “Various inks, among others Cd-based ones are used to coat glasses to lend the glass filtering functions. Through the coating, the glass will then allow certain wavelengths to pass through, while blocking others, depending on its colour or tone. The coatings usually appear semi-transparent to the eye, however where a light source is concerned shall only let certain wavelengths pass through, and are thus considered opaque to these wavelengths. In certain cases, coatings may appear opaque to the human eye, where they are used to block the visible light wavelength range and to only let non-visible wavelengths pass through. Coated filter glass is used as a component of lighting applications installed in displays and control panels of various equipment.”1688 “From our point of view filter glasses covered by Ex. 13b throughout tinted glasses, i.e. Cd- or Pb-containing substances are added during the production of the glass itself. On the other hand “filter glasses” in our terminology are coated glasses (coating = ceramic ink, which may contain Cd or Pb)”.1689 HGT and IRL later agreed that the term “colour printed glass” would be more appropriate for such glasses, in order to distinct them from filter glasses addressed under Ex. 13(b).1690 In the consultants view, the justification for applications of this last group would be similar to the justifications given for Ex. 13b in relation to Cd in filter glasses. Cd is used as it allows a more accurate separation between the spectrum, which should pass through and that, which should be blocked. Alternative additives, as explained under the report for Ex. 13b, do not provide the same “sharp cut-off” accuracy. Use of organic pigments in various ways would also not be comparable as these are explained to fade

1687 Op. cit. HGT & IRL (2016a) 1688 HGT & IRL (2016b), Hecker Glass Technik & Irlbacher Blickpunkt Glass, Reply to 4th Round of Clarification Questions Regarding Exemption No. 21 (renewal request), submitted per email 17.2.2016 1689 Op. cit. HGT & IRL (2016a) 1690 Op. cit. HGT & IRL (2016b)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 653

with time and to be thermally unstable.1691 The consultants can thus follow that substitutes are not yet available for such applications and that an exemption would be justified, however that it would be important to address such applications more clearly in order for them to be distinguished from filter glasses covered under Ex. 13(b). In the consultants opinion it would be possible to address such applications both in respect to the application of printed colour on glass and in respect of the components in which such colours are used, thus limiting the scope to: “the use of Cd in colour printed glass with filtering functions, used as a component in lighting applications installed in displays and control panels of EEE”. In theory, there are different approaches to applying filter applications and light conversion applications to lighting. For example, for down conversion with Cd-quantum dots, manufacturers mention three strategies: on-chip, on-edge, and on-surface.1692 In the on-chip strategy it can be assumed that the converting element may be sold with the LED (the chip) and would thus be understood as a lighting application, falling under Cat. 5. In on-surface however, a down-converting layer is assembled as a sheet in the display and it is assumed that this would be sold separately from the light source and would thus be a display component but not necessarily a lighting component. Applications of filter coating could thus also be relevant in some cases. The Cd-coating could thus in some cases by considered part of the lighting application, falling under Cat. 5, but in others it could be a separate component, related to the display or control panel and falling under a different category. Displays and control panels are therefore understood to be in use in different equipment and thus the exemption should be available to all categories. An exemption for this application could be left in Ex. 21, in light of the printing aspect, however it may be beneficial to add this application to Ex. 13b, as the justification is the same and substitutes that may be developed in the future could be of relevance for both types of filter applications. In applications other than lamp markings, explained to be in scope, Pb is understood to enable a number of properties, some of which can reduce the energy consumption of

1691 See Baron et al. (2016) Baron, Y.; Gensch, C.-O.; Moch, K. in collaboration with Gibbs, A. and Deubzer, O.; Eunomia Research and Consulting Ltd. in cooperation with Oeko-Institut e.V. & Fraunhofer IZM, Assistance to the Commission on technological, socio-economic and cost-benefit assessment related to exemptions from the substance restrictions in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS Directive) – Pack 7, Commissioned by: EU Commission, DG Environment, Brussels, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/reports/20160129b_RoHS_Exemptions_Pack7_F inal_Report.pdf 1692 Baron et al. (2014), Baron, Y.; Blepp, M.; Gensch, C.-O.; Deubzer, O.; in collaboration with Hogg, D.; Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd. in cooperation with Oeko-Institut e.V. & Fraunhofer IZM; Assistance to the Commission on technological, socio-economic and cost-benefit assessment related to exemptions from the substance restrictions in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS Directive)-Pack 4, Commissioned by: European Commission, DG Environment, Brussels pg. 49-50, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_IX/20140422_RoHS2_Evaluation_Ex_Req uests_2013-1-5_final.pdf

654

manufacturing processes (enamelling temperature) and some of which influence the reliability of enamels created with such inks (adhesion, durability, opacity). In this respect Pb-based inks are understood to have advantages over most Pb-free inks, however, in parallel, it can be understood that a substitute has been developed which, based on the provided information, provides comparable performance when applied on borofloat glasses. The substitute is already applied on borofloat glasses used in products made available on the EU market, however, information was not available in sufficient detail to clarify that the substitute would provide the same reliability when applied on other types of glasses. It would also be of interest to understand if the substitute could be used in the lamp marking process to substitute lead-based inks when these are applied at the beginning of the manufacturing process.

29.5.6 Conclusions Article 5(1)(a) provides that an exemption can be justified if at least one of the following criteria is fulfilled: · their elimination or substitution via design changes or materials and components which do not require any of the materials or substances listed in Annex II is scientifically or technically impracticable; · the reliability of substitutes is not ensured; · the total negative environmental, health and consumer safety impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the total environmental, health and consumer safety benefits thereof. The information provided by LEU specifies that inks of various colours are used in lamp marking, some of which are actually lead-free. In other words, it can be understood that some alternatives have become available. The application of such inks is explained only to be possible when the marking stage is at the end of the lamp production process. In cases where the marking stage is at the beginning of the process, the reliability of the lamp marking does not suffice to ensure durability and legibility throughout the lamp life-time, mainly as the following manufacture stages may damage the marking. Though the consultants can follow that the reliability of Pb-based inks (black, silver, gold) may be higher than the reliability of Pb-free inks (green), it can also be understood that this added reliability is only needed to avoid damage during the manufacturing stages. This is confirmed as LEU admits that in cases where the marking is applied at the end, the green ink, which is lead free, can be used. LEU specifies that: “Existing manufacturing lines cannot be easily switched from (older) printing method (at the beginning of the lamp). This is only possible with high investment costs for such machines. Complete new printing equipment has to be installed for T8 and T12 lamps”. In this sense it is understood that the reason for not switching to printing methods, that would allow the use of lead-free inks, is mainly an economical one. Article 5(1)(a) specifies that socio-economic aspects can be taken into consideration. However, as none

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 655

of the three primary criteria are fulfilled, the costs of substitution alone do not suffice to justify an exemption. In relation to the use of Cd in printing inks used as enamels on glass, the consultants understand that Cd is used in printing inks to achieve certain hues of the enamel in various application areas. It can be followed that safety aspects and warning aspects may be required to be communicated with the use of certain hues, which are considered to increase visibility. This is assumed to be the reason why various standards, that regulate the safety of certain applications, specify certain colours for such purposes. It can also be followed that Cd is used for printing on glasses to create filtering functions, as substitutes for Cd in such applications would not provide comparable filtering accuracy or would be less reliable. Thus, where certain hues cannot be manufactured with Cd-free inks, the exemption could be renewed for all relevant applications. If this aspect however is not understood to be relevant as a technical aspect related to the availability of substitution, the EU Commission could limit the applicability of the exemption to Cd-based printing inks, where used to comply with standards and norms requiring the use of specific hues for safety applications and where used as a coating to produce filtering functions. Where Pb inks are used on applications other than glass of lamps, it can be followed that Pb is necessary to provide various qualities of the marking. The presence of Pb allows reducing the enamelling temperature, which in turn would mean that less energy is consumed for this process in comparison with Pb-free leads where the enamelling temperature is higher. Pb also affects the durability and the opacity of the marking, as well as its adhesion to the glass. Though information available indeed supports that most Pb-free alternatives would not be comparable, a substitute is understood to have become available that can be applied on borofloat glasses and that provides comparable reliability. Though this alternative may be sufficient to allow substitution of all Pb-based inks used for enamel applications (i.e. in the full range of glass coating applications), the consultants can follow that some time would be needed to allow establishing that the alternative would be sufficiently reliable in [applications] other than borofloat glasses. A short termed exemption would thus be recommended for Pb-based inks used on other than borofloat glasses to allow establishing that the substitute is sufficiently reliable. In the case of Cd-based inks, since information relating to the development of possible alternatives is currently not available, it can be followed that the exemption may be needed for at least 5 years, however as the applicant and the participating stakeholders did not provide any information to suggest that they are involved in research into substitutes, it could also be considered to provide the exemption for a shorter duration so as to create an incentive for stakeholders to develop a strategy for research and development of substitutes to allow substitution in the future.

656

29.6 Recommendation As explained above, although lead-free substitutes exist for lamp markings, it can be understood that their application on lamp glass needs to be at the end of the lamp production process. In other words, when applied at the end of the process, substitutes exist and are understood to be reliable. Though implementing equipment changes to production lines may require significant investments, this is not understood to fulfil one of the three primary criteria for justifying an exemption. The consultants would thus recommend revoking this exemption. As the lighting industry is undergoing a transformation (from conventional technologies to LED) and as some lamp types can be expected to be phased-out within the next few years, the Commission may decide to renew the exemption despite the lacking technical justification, so as to avoid such costs for technologies approaching phase-out. It can also be understood that substitutes for Pb in printing inks for the application of enamels on other than lamp glass applications are available in some cases, however that their reliability must be established for other than borofloat glasses. In their patent, Schott AG detail that borosilicate glasses include Borofloat33®, Borofloat40®, Fiolax®, Duran® oder Pyrex. Characteristic of borosilicate glasses is their significant share of silica (SiO2) and boric acid (B2O3 > 8%) as glass constituents. The consultants’ understand the various glass types to be trademark names and is of the opinion that the substitute would thus be applicable to all borosilicate glass types. As for Cd in printing inks for the application of enamels on glasses, these are understood not to be available for all hues of red, orange and yellow tones. Such tones are particularly necessary to comply with standards where colours are specified in relation to safety aspects. It can also be understood that some customers specify a certain hue in custom products, for example where a logo is printed on glass or where a glass element is to correspond to colours of other elements to be adjacent to it in use. Furthermore, there are no comparable substitutes for Cd inks used in colour printed glass applied to obtain filtering functions, when these are used as a component in lighting applications installed in displays and control panels of EEE. The justification for the exemption where Cd is used as an ink to provide certain hues and colours is that alternatives do not provide sufficient colour compatibility. If this property can be judged as indispensable, then Ex. 21 could be renewed for Cd-based inks in all applications. If this is not a valid justification, it would be recommended to restrict the exemption for Cd in enamels used for printing of safety warnings and signs, as prescribed in various harmonised standards and norms which are valid in the EU. It would also be recommended to renew the exemption for “the use of Cd in colour printed glass with filtering functions, used as a component in lighting applications installed in displays and control panels of EEE”. However, it may be beneficial to add this as a further item to Ex. 13b, which is closely related to this application in terms of the applicability of substitutes. The following exemptions could thus be granted / renewed:

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 657

Exemption n. 21 Duration* Comments Cd when used in colour printed glass to I. The EU Commission should provide filtering functions, used as a For Cat. 1-7 and 10: consider if it would not be more component in lighting applications 21 July 2021 beneficial to add this entry to Ex. installed in displays and control panels of 13b. EEE II. Alternative A: Cadmium in printing inks for the application of enamels on glasses, such as borosilicate and soda lime glasses, The EU Commission could when used to comply with harmonised consider providing a shorter standards specifying the use of particular validity period so as to promote For Cat. 1-7 and 10: hues for safety applications. the supply chain to develop a 21 July 2021 Alternative B: Cadmium in printing inks strategy for research and for the application of enamels on glasses, development of alternatives for such as borosilicate and soda lime glasses, Cd-based inks. excluding Cd used in colour printed glass to provide filtering functions. The recommended period should Lead in printing inks for the application of III. For Cat. 1-4, 6,7 and suffice to establish the reliability enamels on other than borosilicate 10: 21 July 2019 of Pb-free substitutes in other glasses. than borosilicate glasses. For Cat. 8 and Cat. 9: As it can be understood that the 21 July 2021 exemption duration may vary for For Sub-Cat. 8 in- various categories on the basis of IV. Lead and cadmium in printing inks for the vitro: 21 July 2023 Article 5(2), expiration dates have application of enamels on glasses, such as been specified here on the basis borosilicate and soda lime glasses For Sub-Cat. 9 of the validity periods specified in industrial: 21 July Article 5(2) for categories, which 2024 are newly in scope.

29.7 References Exemption 21 Baron et al. (2014) Baron, Y.; Blepp, M.; Gensch, C.-O.; Deubzer, O.; in collaboration with Hogg, D.; Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd. in cooperation with Oeko-Institut e.V. & Fraunhofer IZM, Assistance to the Commission on technological, socio-economic and cost-benefit assessment related to exemptions from the substance restrictions in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS Directive) - Pack 4, Commissioned by: European Commission, DG Environment, Brussels pg. 49-50, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/ RoHS_IX/20140422_RoHS2_Evaluation_Ex_Requests_2013-1-5_final.pdf Baron et al. (2016) Baron, Y.; Gensch, C.-O.; Moch, K. in collaboration with Gibbs, A. and Deubzer, O.; Eunomia Research and Consulting Ltd. in cooperation with Oeko-Institut e.V. & Fraunhofer IZM, Assistance to the Commission on technological, socio- economic and cost-benefit assessment related to exemptions from the substance restrictions in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS Directive) – Pack 7, Commissioned by: EU Commission, DG Environment, Brussels, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/reports/20160129b_RoHS_ Exemptions_Pack7_Final_Report.pdf

658

HGT (2015a) Hecker Glastechnik GmbH & Co KG, Reply to Consultation Questionnaire Exemption No. 21 (renewal request), submitted 13.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 1/HGT_Reply_to_Consultation_Questionnaire_Exemption_No__21.pdf HGT (2016a) Hecker Glass Technik GmbH & Co KG, Answers to 1st round of clarification questions, submitted per email 18.1.2016 IRL (2015a) Irlbacher Blickpunkt Glas GmbH, Reply to Consultation Questionnaire Exemption No. 21 (renewal request), submitted 7.10.2915, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 1/Reply_to_Consultation_Questionnaire_Exemption_No._21_online.pdf IRL (2016a) Irlbacher Blickpunkt Glas GmbH, Answers to 1st round of clarification questions, submitted per email 18.1.2016 HGT & IRL (2016a) Hecker Glass Technik GmbH & Co KG & Irlbacher Blickpunkt Glass GmbH, Reply to 3rd Round of Clarification Exemption No. 21 (renewal request), submitted per email 16.2.2016 HGT & IRL (2016b) Hecker Glass Technik GmbH & Co KG & Irlbacher Blickpunkt Glass GmbH, Reply to 4th Round of Clarification Questions Regarding Exemption No. 21 (renewal request), submitted per email 17.2.2016 LEU (2015a) LightingEurope, Request to renew Exemption 21 under the RoHS Directive 2011/65/EU Lead and cadmium in printing inks for the application of enamels on glasses, such as borosilicate and soda lime glasses, submitted 15.1.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/ RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_21/21_LE_RoHS_Exemption_Req_Final.pdf LEU (2015b) LightingEurope, Answers to 1st Questionnaire Exemption No. 21 (renewal request), submitted 10.8.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 1/20150810_Ex_21_LightingEurope_Answers_to_1st_Clarification-Questions.pdf LEU (2016a) LightingEurope, Answers to 2nd round of clarification questions, submitted per email on 29.1.2016 Schott AG (2015) Schott AG, Registered Patent DE 102014101140 A1 for “Mit einer glasflussbasierten Beschichtung versehenes Substrat, Glasflussmaterial sowie Verfahren zur Beschichtung eines Glas- oder Glaskeramiksubstrats, published 30.7.2015, avail. under http://google.com/patents/DE102014101140A1?cl=de&hl=de Schott AG (2016a) Schott AG, Answers to Questions Related to DE 102014101140 A1 in the Context of RoHS Annex III Exemption 21, submitted per email on 22.2.2016. TMC (2015) Test & Measurement Coalition, General comments related to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 16.10.2015, available under http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_1 _a-e_/General_Contribution_Test___Measurement_Coalition_package_9_ exemptions_20151016.pdf

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 659

31.0 Exemption 29: "Lead bound in crystal glass as defined in Annex I (Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4) of Council Directive 69/493/EEC (1)"

Declaration In the sections that precede the “Critical Review” the phrasings and wordings of stakeholders’ explanations and arguments have been adopted from the documents provided by the stakeholders as far as required and reasonable in the context of the evaluation at hand. Formulations have been altered in cases where it was necessary to maintain the readability and comprehensibility of the text. These sections are based exclusively on information provided by applicants and stakeholders, unless otherwise stated.

Acronyms and Definitions EDG European Domestic Glass EEE Electrical and Electronic Equipment HCl Hydrochloric acid HF Hydrofluoric acid

H2SO4 Sulfuric acid LCG Lead crystal glass LEU LightingEurope Pb Lead UVCB Substance of Unknown or Variable Composition, complex reaction products or Biological materials

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 679

31.1 Background European Domestic Glass (EDG) and LightingEurope (LEU)1747 have submitted a joint request for the renewal of exemption 29 of Annex III of the RoHS Directive to allow the use of lead in the manufacture of lead crystal glass to be applied in EEE. Crystal is a substance characterized by a continuous and essentially non-crystalline or vitreous inorganic macromolecular structure, which is highly insoluble and inert. Obtained by a mineralogical process, resulting in a chemical network (matrix), crystal constituents are closely linked together and are in a specific chemical environment, different from the initial state of the raw materials.1748 1749 It is explained by the applicants that lead oxides (PbO or Pb3O4), are used as an intermediate for the chemical synthesis of Lead Crystal Glass (LCG). LCG is used in EEE applications because their unique combinations of processing and optical/decorative properties and characteristics allow the manufacture of EEE articles which could not be produced otherwise. Substitutes are said to have been sought over the latest two decades without success. The performance of alternative materials is worse and does not allow the production of articles with comparable properties, notably because of the insufficient workability time made possible by the lead oxide component. Various articles are named as types of EEE in which LCG is used (see Figure 31-1 for examples): · Fixed/portable luminaires; · Lamps; · Electrified mirrors; · Horology (clocks, watches etc.); · Display cases; · Digital photo frames; · Tablet and smart phone docking stations; · Furniture and home décor items (carrousel, tables etc.); · Building materials (illuminated bricks). Thus EDG & LEU request the renewal of the exemption with the following wording: “Lead bound in crystal glass as defined in Directive 69/493/EEC”

1747 EDG & LEU (2015a), European Domestic Glass and LightingEurope, Original Dossier Requesting the Extension of Exemption 29 in Annex III of Directive 2011/65/EU, submitted by the European Domestic Glass Association and by LightingEurope on 16.1.2015 to the EU COM, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/29_EDG_LE_RoHS _Exemption_Req_final.pdf 1748 EDG & LEU (2015b), European Domestic Glass and LightingEurope, Answers to 1st Clarification Questions regarding Exemption 29 in Annex III of Directive 2011/65/EU, submitted on 14.08.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/20150814_Ex_29_ EDG___LEU_1st_round_of_Clarification-Answers_final-Public.pdf 1749 Op. cit. EDG and LEU (2015a)

680

The exemption has been requested for a period of 10 years. In this respect the applicants have specified that the exemption is requested for articles of categories 3 (IT and telecommunications equipment), 4 (consumer equipment), 5(lighting equipment) and 11(other EEE not covered by any of the categories above). Since Article 5(2) of the RoHS Directive limits the maximum duration of the validity of an exemption to 5 years in the case of EEE falling under Cat. 1-7, 10 and 11, the consultants interpret this to mean that the applicant requests the maximum applicable duration.

Figure 31 -1: Example EEE in which lead crystal glass is used

Lighting applications (luminaires, chandelieres) Building materials - illuminated bricks

Electrified mirrors Horology Display cases

Digital photo frames Tablet and smart phone docking Furniture and home décor items stations Source: EDG & LEU (2015a, 2015b)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 681

31.2 Amount of Lead Used under the Exemption EDG & LEU1750 explain that the Crystal Glass Directive 69/493/EEC1751 defines crystal glass into four categories along three criteria, among them its composition expressed notably as lead oxide up to over 30% by weight. Under the REACH Regulation, glass is considered as a UVCB substance (substance of Unknown or Variable Composition, complex reaction products or Biological materials). It is not a preparation and does not contain lead metal nor lead compounds as such. EDG and LEU explain that 130 tonnes1752 of EEE using LCG are placed on the EU market per annum. From the combined declarations of members of EDG who are LCG manufacturers, representing 80% of the EU market share, it can be understood that 40 tons/annum of Pb3O4 and PbO are used as an intermediate for the manufacture of LCG applied to EEE applications manufactured for the EU market. Thus 40 tons/annum of Pb3O4 and PbO are used to manufacture 104 tonnes of lead crystal electric/electronic articles, representing 80% of the EU market share. On this basis, it is estimated that for the total EU market, 130 tonnes are manufactured, of which 50 tons/annum of Pb3O4 and PbO would be used for 1753 manufacture. The Pb comprised in 50 tonnes of Pb3O4 and PbO is estimated to amount to 46 tons.1754

31.3 Description of Requested Exemption 1755 According to EDG & LEU lead oxides (PbO or Pb3O4), are used as an intermediate for the chemical synthesis of Lead Crystal Glass (LCG), as required by Council Directive 15 December 1969 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to crystal glass (69/493/EEC). The amount of lead in the LCG has to be at a minimum of 24% expressed as PbO for the glass to be called “lead crystal” and above 30% for it to be called “full lead crystal”. EDG & LEU stress that it does not mean that there is PbO nor Pb as such in the articles. It is simply a convenient way to express the result of an elementary composition analysis. It is further explained that under REACH Regulation1756, Crystal Glass is itself a substance of unknown or variable composition,

1750 Op. cit. EDG & LEU (2015a) 1751 COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 15 December 1969 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to crystal glass (69/493/EEC), (OJ L 326, 29.12.1969, p.36), available under: http://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:01969L0493-20070101 1752 In the application document, both tons and tonnes are referred to. A Uk ton represents 1016 kg and an American one 907 kg, whereas a tonne represents 1000 kg. The consultants assume that the inconsistency is a typo and that tonnes, representing 1000 kg are meant, as this would be consistent with the explained calculation. 1753 It is further noted that the former submission (exemption renewal request from 2008) indicated 145 tonnes/year, most probably because there was a confusion between lead crystal glass EEE applications and Pb oxide components. 1754 Op. cit. EDG & LEU (2015a) 1755 Op. cit. EDG & LEU (2015a) 1756 Cited as REACH Regulation, Annex V and Guidance for Annex V, Entry 11, pp.38-39

682

which by convention is expressed as oxides of the constituent elements (SiO2, Na2O, K2O, PbO, etc.). The addition of lead oxide enables: · The production of exceptional articles otherwise impossible to obtain, through the: o increased working time with the glass, via excellent thermal and viscosity properties (melting and forming); o unique optical properties needed for: § High refractive index nd > 1.56 (responsible for brilliance); § High dispersion nf – nc > 0.01, preferably 0.013 (responsible for the refraction and reflection performance); § High light transmission (L > 98; -0.5 < a < 0; -0.5 < b < 0.5 (100 mm thickness immersion, light C, 2°, CIELAB); § No grey, but sharp colour transition; o unique mechanical (cutting and polishing) process possibility; o unique refinement (sustainable surface) process possibility; o decorative aspects. · A better energy efficiency. Measures demonstrate that from a same source (LED), the light flow transmitted through a crystal item is bigger by a factor of at least 10%, compared to the light flow transmitted by the same item in flint glass. The energy efficiency (lumen/watt) of crystal is therefore much better than in flint glass. In certain cases, the ranking Index of energy efficiency (IEE) of an electric lighting device can jump to category A (with crystal) from category B (with flint glass). In other words, less energy is required for lighting. On this basis, EDG & LEU1757 conclude the crystal glass is a component of high quality lighting and decoration applications (see Section 31.1), and is used for the very production of these articles otherwise impossible to manufacture, for enhancing light distribution or transparency thereof and for enabling specific decoration (shape and finishing). In a later communication1758 it is elaborated that in the hot process, the use of lead for the synthesis of crystal increases the working range. It reduces the viscosity of the melt for the same temperature, rendering it more fluid than ordinary glass. The viscosity of glass varies radically with temperature. This results in a few practical developments: · Lead glass may be worked at a lower temperature, making possible the shaping of sophisticated items. Design is therefore determined by the cooling time: complex forms are not possible to produce in a glass (without lead) with a short working range – see Figure 31-2 representing viscosity as function of temperature for several types of glass. Simply stated, the working range of

1757 Op. cit. EDG and LEU (2015a) 1758 Op. cit. EDG and LEU (2015b)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 683

glass is that range of temperatures that corresponds to the point where glass just begins to soften up to the point where glass is too soft to control. The ASTM and the American Ceramics Society committees on glass definitions summarize the definition now widely used in today's glass industries1759: WORKING RANGE: "The range of temperatures in which glass is formed into ware in a specific process. For comparison purposes, when no specific process is considered, the working range of glass is assumed to correspond to a viscosity range from the working point to the softening point. (4 to 7.6 Log10 Poise)". A LONG glass will have a significantly longer temperature range from the working point to the softening point than a SHORT glass. Since glass blowers hand work (or hand process) glasses in this range they are able to readily distinguish a long glass from a short glass. · The working range also has a direct impact on manufacturing cost due to reheating requirements (additional energy consumption, timing and defective items). · Properties of the crystal are also key-factors for tools design; therefore any change in the properties may lead to major change requirements for the associated tools. Figure 31 -2: Viscosity as a function of temperature for several glass types

1759 EDG and LEU (2015b) refers to pp. 677-680 in The Handbook of Glass Manufacture by Tooley and pp. 72-74 in Technical Glasses by Volf

684

Source: EDG & LEU (2015b)

31.4 Applicant’s Justification for Exemption EDG & LEU1760 provide more detail as to the function of lead in LCG, explaining that “lead oxide or tetroxide is added to achieve the following characteristics: · Refractive index: ratio of the speed of the light in vacuum in a dimensionless number that describes how light propagates through a medium. The higher the refractive index, the more lighting effects (rainbow). · Abbe number: Abbe number is a measure of the variation of refractive index with wavelength so that the refractive index of a glass with a low Abbe number varies across the visible spectrum less than a glass with a high Abbe number. Lead crystal glass has a low Abbe number which reduces chromatic aberration in parallel to displaying a high refractive index. · Dispersion: phenomenon in which the phase velocity of a wave depends on its frequency. The bigger the dispersion, the more visible spectrum of colours (rainbow). · Cooling time: lapse of time between two viscosity states below and above which glass cannot be shaped. The more time is possible, the more specific (longer, thinner, and complex) shapes can be designed. This specificity enhances the skills of the craftsman to elaborate high end products. · Working range: range of temperature with the same purpose of the cooling time, expressed in °C, instead of time. · Vickers’ Hardness: measure of hardness of the material. The lower the hardness, the more possibilities for cutting and engraving complex artistic designs on exceptional and prestigious items which can only be achieved by handcrafting. · Better energy efficiency1761 because of less energy consumption together with a better lighting effect.”

31.4.1 Possible Alternatives for Substituting RoHS Substances EDG & LEU1762 explain that research has been conducted for over two decades, but that no viable substance substitute exists. There are a limited number of elements in the periodic table available that can be combined to form certain kinds of crystal glass in EEE applications (BaO, ZnO, SrO, CaO, MgO). Combinations that exist form glasses only

1760 Op. cit. EDG and LEU (2015a) 1761 When asked to quantify this aspect, EDG replied that “A confidential study made by one of our stakeholders shows that for a light source of 30,9 lm/W, crystal gives 10% more light than glass leading to an ‘A’ category for crystal item and ‘B’ for some glass items.” As it was not possible to understand how this study was performed from information in the public realm and as other argumentation was found to provide a relevant basis on which the review can be judged, this aspect has not been further pursued. 1762 Op. cit. EDG & LEU (2015a)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 685

within relatively small composition ranges. Many combinations have been tested but a viable alternative has not yet been found. Research has provided patterns achieving some of the Pb-bound in crystal properties, but none of these patterns achieve all of the same essential properties, especially the main one: thermo-mechanical-optical properties to elaborate the product. EDG & LEU provide a comparison as presented in Table 31-1 below. The results obtained show that the required properties are not provided by investigated candidates, which displayed inferior thermal, mechanical and optical properties (cooling time, Vickers hardness, Abbe number) and that would thus not allow the manufacture of the same applications. Table 31 -1: Comparison of properties of lead crystal to lead-free crystal and and sodalime crystal

Source: EDG & LEU (2015a) Notes: Lead-free crystal 1&2 : formulations investigated during R&D works (thesis conducted by Baccarat until 2003, confidential, references upon request), Lead-free crystal 3 : US patent 2007/003237A1, Lead- free is based on US Patent. Holder is Swarowski Sodalime glass: commercial formulation used for tableware production

On this basis EDG & LEU1763 conclude that lead-free glass does not fit with the required combination of essential properties. · “Shorter cooling time/working range would not permit the production of complex items any more. · Higher Vickers hardness will trigger musculo-skeletal disorders for the workers because the cutting difficulty will dramatically increase. In addition, quicker damage and need to replace industrial tools will drastically increase. It will

1763 Op. cit. EDG and LEU (2015a)

686

become impossible to make very intricately engraved articles as employers are required to protect the health of their workers. · The combination of optical properties (refractive index, Abbe number, dispersion) generated by the use of lead bound in crystal glass are unique and unmatched by other materials (the latter are unable to obtain the same low value of chromatic aberration).” According to EDG & LEU1764 there are no industrial processable substitutes with comparable thermo-mechanical-optical properties enabling the manufacture of handmade high end articles. There is no single element or combination of elements known to substitute Pb in crystal glass in all its properties (workability, optical properties, chemical resistance, etc.). Tested combinations of elements such as Ti, B, Zn, Bi, Sb, Ba, Sr, Li, have only allowed reaching some of the above-mentioned properties. It is further explained that it is difficult to estimate if and when further research shall allow achieving the demanding combinations of essential characteristics. It is therefore not possible to predict how long this type of R&D would take or whether substitutes could be found for all the lead bound in crystal EEE applications.

31.4.2 Environmental Arguments According to EDG & LEU1765 the hazard represented by glass depends on the intrinsic properties of the substance glass and not on the intrinsic properties of the individual substances that went into the batch as intermediates for making the glass. By definition, glass is an amorphous, inorganic solid material made by fusing silica with basic oxides. Glass is called amorphous because it is neither a solid nor a liquid but exists in a vitreous (or glassy) state. From a chemical point of view, glass is both a unique material and a material state respectively. The chemical and physical material characteristics and behaviour cannot be derived from the properties of the raw materials (e.g., PbO or Pb3O4) used as intermediates. The melting process leads to a complete chemical transformation forming a new chemical compound: crystal glass. Lead bound in crystal glass waste is a non-hazardous waste according to EC Decision 2003/33/EC. Criteria for acceptance of non-hazardous waste at landfills have been introduced in Council Decision 2003/33/EC, also including leaching thresholds for various substances. According to EDG & LEU, LCG has been tested and lead bound in crystal complies with the leaching values of the landfill directive (see Appendix A.5.0) and is classified as non-hazardous material in the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC). It is further explained that lead crystal EEE applications are prestigious and expensive items which are kept, transferred, inherited or resold. The repairing or replacement of the broken parts, of these prestigious and expensive items (e.g. one branch or prism of a luminaire), prevents the discarding of the full EEE application. Crystal manufacturers provide inherent assistance via an after-sales service by which they collect and replace

1764 Op. cit. EDG and LEU (2015a) 1765 Op. cit. EDG&LEU (2015a)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 687

the broken parts of EEE crystal items which have been brought back by the customer, sometimes via the distribution chain. In addition, there are second-hand shops and specialized repair workshops, privately collecting, repairing and replacing spare parts of EEE applications made of lead bound in crystal glass. In this sense EDF & LEU argue the probability of LCG EEE articles to reach the waste stream to be very small. The number of discarded spare parts is negligible, given that EEE applications made of lead crystal glass are prestigious and expensive items which the consumer has all interest to keep and repair.1766 Finally, during the visit at the Saint-Louis manufacturing facility (see Section 31.5), both representatives of Saint-Louis and of Baccarat explained that the use of lead in the glass affects its workability and subsequently the energy consumption of various manufacturing stages. Saint-Louis were asked to substantiate this aspect and provided the following detail as a follow-up to the visit: Saint-Louis1767 explains that lead oxide included in a glass recipe has a significant contribution towards lowering the melting temperature of the different oxides, and towards extending the working range. The time within this working range is critical for handmade work, because it corresponds to the temperatures where the thermal and viscosity behaviour of the glass is suitable for glass shaping. Typically the lead oxide glasses will have longer working range by about 60-80°C (about +30% longer)1768 in comparison to lead-free glasses. Consequently workers have more time to shape the glass before heating it again. Moreover, the thermal behaviour of lead oxide glass is shifted towards lower temperature, which means a lesser high reheating process when needed. All in all a lead oxide recipe needs less energy than a lead-free one. Saint- Louis1769, estimates that typically the orders of magnitude of energy consumption savings and advantages for lead-glass recipes versus lead-free recipes, in relation to various processing stages are as follows: · Fusion: with a nominal temperature setting of at least 50°C less for fusion in pot & tank furnaces, this translates to at least 10% less energy consumption for lead glass vs lead-free glass. · Blowing/glass art: during shaping processes, glass is regularly reheated in different side gas furnaces, to allow the completion of all the different shaping gestures (blow gestures +hand shaping gestures) to achieve the right

1766 Op. cit. EDG&LEU (2015a) 1767 Saint-Louis (2015a), Answers to clarification questions following visit at the Saint-Louis manufacturing facility, sent per email 15.1.2016 1768 In this regard please note the reference in Section 31.3: “The range of temperatures in which glass is formed into ware in a specific process. For comparison purposes, when no specific process is considered, the working range of glass is assumed to correspond to a viscosity range from the working point to the softening point. (4 to 7.6 Log10 Poise)”. See also Figure 31-2: Viscosity as a function of temperature for several glass types . 1769 Saint-Louis (2015a), Answers to clarification questions following visit at the Saint-Louis manufacturing facility, sent per email 15.1.2016

688

design. Lead oxide glass recipes, which have a longer working time, do not need to be reheated as often, and the needed temperature (relevant for reheating) is lower. Though it is difficult to quantify the differences in light of the diversity in the various pieces typology, it is however clear that the energy consumption relevant for making the same amount of pieces per time unit is less (estimated as about 15%). · Annealing: with a nominal temperature setting of at least 50°C less for annealing in belt furnaces (after glass shaping and cup removing), it is estimated that as a minimum 15% less energy is consumed for lead-glass in comparison to lead-free glass. · Every mechanical operation is affected by the change of hardness of the glass. Lead-glass is less hard than lead-free glass. As a consequence, the needed effort to modify the surface of the material is lower: o Handmade cutting: 20-50% less time is needed for completing tasks (depending on product’s typology), with non-evaluated impacts on skeleton & muscular diseases. o Machine cutting: 15% less power is needed for the completing the same tasks. o Flat surfacing & final polishing: surface polishing is highly dependent on the hardness; lead glass flat surfacing time as compared to lead- free recipes is estimated to be about 75% less energy intensive, and for final polishing and reparation this difference is estimated to be about 35% less. Consequently, energy saving is expected to greater in lead glass. o Etching - acid polishing: The acid polishing process is comprised of a succession of dipping into different baths of hydrofluoric (HF) & sulfuric (H2SO4) acids, enabling chemical attacks of the glass surface and cleaning ones. This process occurs at 50°C. The chemistry of a lead glass reacts differently to the acid attacks of lead-free glass because of the atoms network bonding and chemical affinities, which influences the chemical reactions at the surface. For lead-free glass, it has been observed that the cleaning of the chemical substances from the acid attack is favourable when hydrochloric (HCl) acid is added to the HF and H2SO4, which means higher costs and energy, not yet quantified. According to the tests carried out, for the global etching process, typically 60% less time is needed for lead glass as compared to lead- free glass, which means directly 60% less energy consumption. · Decoration: the firing process of gold palladium coatings is done in batch furnaces at temperatures which are at least 50°C lower for lead-glass recipes in comparison to lead-free glass, which means about 15% less energy.

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 689

Saint-Louis1770 concludes that all in all, the estimated energy saving along the production stages of crystal lead glass in comparison to lead-free glass is between 20-30%. Concerning possible differences in the maintenance of equipment, the frequency at which cutting wheels need to be sharpened and replaced is around twice less (Saint- Louis’s terminology).

31.4.3 Socio-economic Impact of Substitution EDG & LEU1771 argue that the ban of lead crystal in electric and electronic equipment would lead to the disappearance of some mainly lead crystal manufacturing companies. In Europe there are many companies whose business is devoted entirely to the production and sale of lead crystal chandeliers and allied lighting products (e.g. in UK approximately 10). A larger group of companies have lead crystal products as part of a wider range of products (e.g. in UK approximately 25) and there are a number of specialist antique restoration companies that refurbish and restore lead crystal chandeliers and rely on the manufacture of spare parts made from the same quality of crystal glass (e.g. in UK approximately 5). LCG is manufactured mostly through artisanal work, requiring unique and specific knowledge, with some European companies benefitting in this respect from national recognition for this via a status of patrimonial knowledge. EEE applications represent about one third of the turnover for some of these companies. Should the exemption not be renewed, it would mean: · Loss of economic and patrimonial wealth. · Loss of circa one third of turnover of related manufacturing companies and in the medium/long term, their disappearance. · Loss of 1,000 direct jobs and 3,000 indirect jobs1772 in Europe. If lead crystal were to be banned in the EU the high quality market for chandeliers and other allied lighting products would be severely affected as the distinction between high quality chandeliers (some costing 10s of thousands of EUR) and poorer quality items will not exist. As a result the market for high quality crystal lighting will be damaged and some companies may be forced out of business with a resulting loss of jobs. A similar damage will affect the restoration and refurbishment market as lead crystal parts matching the originals would not be available rendering their work as poor restorations (bearing in mind that refurbished lighting products need to comply with relevant regulations). If the market does not exist there would be no replacement part available.1773

1770 Op. cit. Saint-Louis (2015a) 1771 Op. cit. EDG & LEU (2015a) 1772 Indirect jobs are understood to be related to enterprises which use lead crystal in their work, however which do not manufacture the lead crystal themselves. For example, manufacturers of articles who rely on lead crystal producers as suppliers, enterprises who repair items (e.g. through replacement of single items that have broken, etc.). 1773 Op. cit. EDG & LEU (2015a)

690

In a later communication it is understood that a large share of the manufacture of LCG for EEE articles relies on hand crafting and manual processing. Chandeliers, floor lamps, candelabras, table lamps, wall sconces, luminaires are made in crystal glass. Those lead crystal glass items are mainly hand crafted even if some parts could be industrially processed. For example a chandelier requires from 500 to 1,750 worked hours. Hand crafting is said to represent 85% of work time, of the cold processing parts, for chandeliers, floor lamps, candelabras, table lamps, wall sconces and luminaires, . The remaining 15% of the work time utilises an automated tool. Equivalent additional worked hours should be taken into account for forming the part – all these additional hours are hand-crafted. Even for items where the main blank shape is produced by machine (picture frames, clocks etc.), the manual work content is approximately 80% of the manufacturing cost. Besides, most of the items manufactured by EDG-Member factories and workshops are unique. Each of them is a creation or issued in a limited edition. There is no mass production: 1774 · For horology, production is about hundreds per year per producer; · For chandeliers, total production volume is a little more than a thousand per year in Europe.

31.4.4 Roadmap to Substitution General statements were made by the applicant as to the lack of available substitutes despite the research efforts that had been carried out in this area over the years. Following the visit at the Saint-Louis manufacturing facility (see Section 31.5) and the understanding from both Saint-Louis and Baccarat that manufacturers were actively researching possible alternatives to the use of lead in lead-crystal handmade articles, Saint-Louis were asked to substantiate the various aspects of their research. In this respect, Saint-Louis1775 explains the production of a lead crystal piece to be a succession of different sub-processes, gathered in hot and cold areas. In total, this includes more than 20 sub-processes, with flows depending on the product typology. The table below illustrates 3 different production flows (in green) for 3 typical luminaire crystal parts. The complexity (i.e. of the research of potential substitutes) takes place intrinsically in the different flows that need to be tested but also in the interactions between the different sub-processes. In other words, the evaluation/development of a sub-process n+1 may necessitate the modification of a sub-process n or of the glass recipe itself,

1774 EDG & LEU (2015b), European Domestic Glass and LightingEurope, Answers to 1st Clarification Questions regarding Exemption 29 in Annex III of Directive 2011/65/EU, submitted on 14.08.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/20150814_Ex_29_ EDG___LEU_1st_round_of_Clarification-Answers_final-Public.pdf 1775 Op. cit. Saint-Louis (2015a)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 691

which would require to check / adjust again other sub-processes: setting the recipe is an iterative development which needs to be proved for repeatability and reproducibility regarding handmade and product diversities. 1776 hot processes ability ← impacts glass recipe → cold processes ability At each stage, on one hand the product parameters are evaluated according to Saint- Louis quality standards expected by customers (Norme de Choix), and on the other hand in respect to the process performances (reject levels, energy consumption, maintenance impacts). For instance, the thermal and viscosity behaviour of one recipe could be found suitable for blowing processes, but not for injection/pressing processes, which means a correction of the recipe and a new check of the blowing performance would be needed. However, a change of the recipe also affects the fusion properties, particularly the refining process, which is key aspect for producing a high quality glass without bubbles. Another example of interaction is the impact of a recipe modification on the chemical behaviour during the etching process (acid attack), and on the aptitude of gold or platinum decoration (decor adhesion on the glass substrate during the firing decoration process).1777

1776 Op. cit. Saint-Louis (2015a) 1777 Op. cit. Saint-Louis (2015a)

692

Table 31 -2: Example of 3 different production flows (in green) for 3 luminaire pieces

Fusion Hot processes Cold processes

flat polishing fusion blowing glass cup tank annealing removing handmade cuts furnace injection tunnel oven laser machine cuts glass or pressing engraving hurricanes paperweight drilling / neck tooling fusion glass cup reparation

for luminair composition acid polishingacid final polishing final

pot annealing removing glass annealing application & firing chemical engraving raw material mixing furnaces glass art batch oven saw sand blasting cut edgescut flame polishing Gold/palladium decoration

flat polishing fusion blowing glass cup tank annealing removing handmade cuts colored furnace injection tunnel oven laser machine cuts hurricane pressing engraving holder paperweight drilling / neck tooling fusion glass cup reparation

for luminair composition acid polishingacid final polishing final

pot annealing removing glass annealing application & firing chemical engraving raw material mixing furnaces glass art batch oven saw sand blasting cut edgescut flame polishing Gold/palladium decoration

flat polishing fusion blowing glass cup tank annealing removing handmade cuts furnace injection tunnel oven laser machine cuts pressing engraving branch paperweight drilling / neck tooling + fusion glass cup reparation

for luminair composition acid polishingacid final polishing final electrification

pot annealing removing glass annealing application & firing chemical engraving raw material mixing furnaces batch oven saw glass art sand blasting holder metal to sealing cut edgescut flame polishing Gold/palladium decoration

Source: Saint-Louis (2015a) Fusion is the key starting process, which cannot be tested directly with final production furnaces (tank or pots). Indeed recipes evaluation and pre-validation must start with crucibles at the laboratory and in small size pots with limited trials, enabling the production of some pieces for testing performance in respect to shaping and cutting and challenging their hot/cold processes ability, leading finally to real size pots and extensive validations. Consequently, the use of a tank furnace ought to be done at the end of the development of all the sub processes with the final glass recipe selected, with the help of the tank furnace supplier where designing of the right furnace is of relevance.1778 Colours development is also a key issue for the product portfolio in relation to expectations of customers and designers, for luminaires as well as for decoration and tableware. A dozen colours are currently made available by Saint-Louis on the market. Many coloured products are made of overlaid glass colours. The glass colours must be developed on the basis of the clear recipe, for dilatation coefficient and fusion compatibility reasons. Furthermore, the effect of the colorant oxides strongly depends

1778 Op. cit. Saint-Louis (2015a)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 693

on the glass matrix. Therefore the development of the different colours must be synchronized once the clear recipe is known, and this cannot be fully anticipated and induces a time shift as well in respect to the time needed for enabling substitution.1779 Saint-Louis1780 explains that as indicated in the presentation held during the visit on 3 December 2015 (detailed in Section 31.5), the overall recipe development for a substitute is thus based on a progressive, iterative and focusing approach following several criteria which must be validated with each other. So far, after desk-research (of between 1 to 600 recipes) and experimental tests with crucibles (of between 1 to 20 recipes), between 1 and 10 recipes are currently being tested in small pots, and Saint- Louis has initiated real pot evaluation of between 1-5 recipes. It took about 5 years to arrive at the mapping of results for processes performance, shown in the presentation for the hot and cold areas. On this basis it is expected that at least 10 more years shall be needed to achieve the final focus on one recipe and its optimization, in order to cope with the different sub-processes relevant for producing the product portfolio of the luminaires and other pieces manufactured by Saint-Louis. Against this background, Saint- Louis however also notes that there is no guarantee of success at this stage.

31.5 Visit of LCG Manufacturing Facility During the evaluation period EDG coordinated a visit of the consultants at the manufacturing facility Saint-Louis1781, located in the Lorraine region of France. During the visit the various stages of the manufacturing process were observed, including: · Manufacture of pots from special clay, used for the fusing of the lead crystal glass in the second stage in the “multi-pot” furnaces – the composition of the clay is specifically determined for the LCG composition and will need adaptions should the composition of the glass change; · First fusion in furnace of the intermediate ingredients into clear lead crystal glass. Most facilities will have a unique glass composition making separation of manufacture to lead-free articles and lead-based articles impractical; · Second fusion in multi-pot furnaces of the lead crystal glass as preparation for hot processing of articles. In this stage metal oxides can be added to the clear crystal glass to determine the colour of a specific batch of glass; · Hot processing of lead crystal – glass blowing as well as glass pressing (manufacture of articles with moulds). In the process of forming, the articles are reheated as necessary to provide sufficient forming time – the working range of the glass determines how many times the article is to be reheated until the hot process forming is completed;

1779 Op. cit. Saint-Louis (2015a) 1780 Op. cit. Saint-Louis (2015a) 1781 The visit at Saint-Loius (See http://www.saint-louis.com/en/ for details) took place on the 3.12.2015 and was also attended by representatives of EDG, the French Federation of crystal manufacturers and Baccarat (another French lead crystal manufacturer).

694

· Belt and static furnaces are used to anneal articles after they are blown/pressed to relieve inner tensions and “relax” the material; · Cold processing of lead crystal articles - depending on the type of article being produced, this stage may include: cutting, engraving, polishing, etching and gold decoration. At this stage the hardness of the glass impacts the processing time, subsequently determining the wear of machinery. It was explained that the refraction of lead glass plays an important role for lighting products and thus that engraving and cutting processes, which are easier when lead is present, are more common to create more intense refraction effects. From the current research it can already be seen that certain types of cutting processes are impossible to achieve with lead-free crystal, as lead-based crystal glass is softer. Furthermore, Saint-Louis presented results of their on-going research efforts into alternatives. It is understood that the search for lead-free recipes was motivated years ago by the regulation of lead, e.g. under RoHS and by the ongoing discussions about food contact and REACH. According to Saint-Louis, the general goal is to find an alternative glass recipe which shall allow manufacturing products with the unique properties relevant both for manufacture and for the end product. A new composition needs to show similar properties throughout all stages of manufacture and processing while also resulting in articles with the same qualities as LCG (refraction of light, the clearness of the glass, etc.). To begin with, candidate substitutes need to have a similar density and to exhibit similar refraction properties. Furthermore, candidates will need to be tested to see their performance through the various production phases, to ensure that the same articles can be manufactured with comparable quality. Saint-Louis have identified over 20 sub-processes within the manufacture for which potential compositions need to be checked, as well as checking the internal relations between these processing stages. The need to use a single composition for manufacturing a relatively wide product portfolio further complicates the search for a suitable alternative, as a potential substitute composition shall need to enable manufacture of a wide variety of different products1782. Aside from ensuring the technical comparability of candidate substitutes, it is also necessary to ensure that negative health and environmental impacts shall not be a result of substitution. In this respect, if the weight or the hardness of the material

1782 In this respect, the consultants can follow that the use of both the first fusion furnace and of the multi- pot furnace in the manufacturing process may limit the practicability of manufacturing in separate batches. This is because for each batch, all furnaces would need to be cleaned from any residues, which may affect the recipe composition and thus the properties of the crystal in subsequent production stages and in the final products. Furthermore, Saint-Louis has also mentioned the need to optimise the composition of the clay used for the pots in the multi-pot furnace, should a new composition be found to be a practical substitute. It has also been communicated that possibly the machines used from cold processing would need to be adapted in light of differences in the hardness of the material. In this sense, it can be followed that batch production that may allow using a lead-free or lead-reduced formula for certain articles and lead based for others, would not be practical. Though theoretically it is possible that multiple production lines could be constructed, this would only be practical in facilities above a certain size of production.

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 695

change, this may influence the workability of articles for employees, as well as influencing the time needed for certain processes and thus the energy consumption or the wear of machinery. If the composition shall have a higher fusing temperature and/or a shorter work range, this would also increase the time needed for various process stages as well as the energy consumption. Furthermore, depending on the substances that shall compose the substitute, toxicity aspects may also need to be considered.

31.6 Stakeholder Contributions The following stakeholders contributed to the stakeholder consultation regarding Ex. 29 and all support the renewal of the exemption: · Academie de Clermont- Ferrand, Lycée Jean Monnett (Academie de C-F);1783 · Assemblée Nationale, Jacques Lamblin, Député de Meurthe et Moselle, Maire de Lunéville (Maire de Lunéville );1784 · Assemblée Nationale, Céleste Lett, Député de la Moselle, Maire de Sarreguemines (Maire de Sarreguemines);1785 · Assemblée Nationale, Gérard Cherpion, Member of the French Parliament, Member of the regional Council of the region Lorraine (Gérard Cherpion);1786 · Association of the Glass and Ceramic Industry of the Czech Republic (ASKPCR);1787 · Canning Design Ltd (Canning Design);1788 · Cerfav, CRT- Verre (Cerfav);1789

1783 Academie de CF (2015), Academie de Clermont-Ferrand, Lycée Jean Monnett, submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/ Ex_29_lycee_Jean_Monnet_zusammengefuegt.pdf 1784 Maire de Lunéville (2015), Assemblée Nationale, Jacques Lamblin, Député de Meurthe et Moselle, Maire de Lunéville, General comments related to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 12.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/ Courrier_RoHS_anglais.pdf 1785 Maire de Sarreguemines (2015), Assemblée Nationale, Céleste Lett, Député de la Moselle, General comments related to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/contribution_by_c eleste_LETT.pdf 1786 Gérard Cherpion (2015), Assemblée Nationale, Gérard Cherpion, Member of the French Parliament, Member of the regional Council of the region Lorraine, General comments related to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: • Assemblée Nationale, Gérard Cherpion, Member of the French Parliament, Member of the regional Council of the region Lorraine 1787 ASKPCR (2015), Association of the Glass and Ceramic Industry of the Czech Republic, submitted 16.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/ Exemption_29/Ex_29_ASKPCR_16102015.pdf 1788 Canning Design (2015), Canning Design Ltd., submitted 16.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/Ex_29_CanningDe sign_Consultation_Document151015.pdf 1789 Cerfav (2015), CRT- Verre, submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/ fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/Ex_29_Cerfav_20151016.pdf

696

· CFE-CGC Chimie (CFE- CGC);1790 · Confédération française des métiers d'art de l'exellence et du luxe- French Confederation of Arts and Crafts (CFMA);1791 · Fédération CFTC Chimie Mies Textile Energie (CFTC- CMTE);1792 · Institut Universitaire de France, Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Chimie de Clermont- Ferrand (Institut Universitaire de France);1793 · John Rocha, CBE (John Rocha);1794 · José Lévy, Design expert (José Lévy);1795 · Parlament Européen, Députée Européene ADLE/ Grand Est- France (Députée au Parlament européen);1796 · Direction de l’Economie Solidaire et de l’Insertion, Conseil Départemental de Meurthe-et-Moselle (Meurthe et Mosselle)1797; · La Région Lorraine, Le Président du Conseil Régional de Lorraine, Sénateur de la Moselle ( Région Lorraine);1798

1790 CFE- CGC (2015), CFE- CGC Chimie, French trade union, submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/Ex_29_CFE- CGC_Chimie_reponses_questions_20151016.pdf 1791 CFMA(2015), Confédération française des métiers d'art de l'exellence et du luxe- French Confederation of Arts and Crafts, Application to exemption No 29 of crystal glass a part of the directive RoHS 69/493/EEC, submitted 13.10.2015, available under:http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/ RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/Contribution_by_confederation_francaise.pdf 1792 CFTC- CMTE (2015), Fédération CFTC Chimie Mies Textile Energie, submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/ Ex_29_FEDERATION_CFTC-CMTE_Position_20151016_ENG.pdf 1793 Institut Universitaire de France (2015), Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Chimie de Clermont- Ferrand, submitted 15.10.2015, available under:http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/ RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/Contribution_Exe_29.pdf 1794 John Rocha (2015), Designer, CBE, 10 Ely Place, Dublin, Ireland, submitted 16.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/Ex_29_John_Roch a_Contribution__20151016.pdf 1795 José Lévy (2015), Design expert, General comments to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/ Exemption_29/Lettre_Jos_Levy_V2__2_.pdf 1796 Députée au Parlament européen (2015), Parlament Européen, Députée Européene ADLE/ Grand Est- France (Députée au Parlament européen, Renouvellement d’exemption- Référence Exemption No 29, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/20151012_- Consultation_publique_-_Exemption_Request_For_Exemption_no._29_ROHS.pdf 1797 Meurthe et Mosselle (2015), Direction de l’Economie Solidaire et de l’Insertion, Conseil Départemental de Meurthe-et-Moselle, Application to exempt No 29 of Crystal Glass as a Part of the Directive RoHS 69/493/EEC, submitted 29.9.2015, available under http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/Contribution_by_ Direction_de_l_Economie_Solidaire_et_de_l_Insertion.pdf 1798 Région Lorraine(2015), Le Président du Conseil Régional de Lorraine, Sénateur de la Moselle, General comments to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/translation.pdf

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 697

· La Fédération Chemistry - Energy of the CFDT Group (Cfdt);1799 · Lyceé Dominique Labroise, The Headmaster, F. Vignola (Lyceé Dominique Labroise);1800 · Ministry of Industry and Trade of Czech Republic, Vice Minister, Ing. Eduard Muricky (Ministry of Industry/ Trade of Czech Republic);1801 · Moselle Department Council, Le president (Moselle Department);1802 · Noé Duchaufour Lawrance, pour Néonata S.A.R.L. (Noé Duchaufour Lawrance);1803 · Test and Measurement Coalition (TMC);1804 · Jackie Pierre, Senat (Le Senateur de Vosges);1805 · Philippe Leroy, Senat (Le Senateur de la Moselle);1806 · PRECIOSA- LUSTRY, a.s., President of Managing Board (PRECIOSA).1807

1799 Cfdt (2015), La Fédération Chemistry - Energy of the CFDT Group, Consultation Questionnaire Exemption no. 29, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/ user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/Ex_29_CFDT_ROHS_20151015_.pdf 1800 Lyceé Dominique Labroise (2015), The Headmaster, F. Vignola, General comments to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/20151015094719 390.pdf 1801 Ministry of Industry / Trade of Czech Republic (2015), Vice Minister, Ing. Eduard Muricky, General Comments to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 16.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/Ex_29_Ministry_o f_Industry_and_Trade_of_the_Czech_Republic_contribution_20151016.pdf 1802 Moselle Department (2015), Moselle Department Council, Le president, General comments to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 14.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/Ex_29_Departmen t_Moselle_Council_14102015_Oko-Institut.pdf 1803 Noé Duchaufour Lawrance (2015) pour Néonata S.A.R.L., General comments to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/Ex_29_NOEDUCH AUFOURLAWRANCE_20151015.pdf 1804 TMC (2015), Test and Measurement Coalition, General comments related to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 16.10.2016, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_1_a- e_/General_Contribution_Test___Measurement_Coalition_package_9_exemptions_20151016.pdf 1805 Le Senateur des Vosges (2015), Jackie Pierre, Senat, Exemption Request for Exemption No 29 (renewal request), submitted 07.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/051015_Directive _ROHS_-_CONSULTATION_CE_cabinet_Oeko_exemption_29.pdf 1806 Le Senateur de la Moselle(2015), Philippe Leroy, Senat, Application to exemption No 29 of crystal glass a part of the directive RoHS 69/493/EEC, submitted 13.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/contribution_by_p hilippe_leroy.pdf 1807 PRECIOSA (2015), PRECIOSA- LUSTRY, a.s., Lucie Karlova, President of Managing Board, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/Contribution- Preciosa_EN-ws___2_.pdf

698

A short summary of the aspects raised by the various stakeholders is provided in Table 31-3. Table 31 -3: Summary of aspects related to Ex. 29 raised in stakeholder contributions

Aspect Stakeholders Lack of substitutes for lead oxides in the Meurthe et Mosselle; Senateur des Vosges; Maire de manufacture of LCG, despite research Lunéville Senateur de la Moselle; CFMA; Moselle efforts of manufacturers. Department; Maire de Sarreguemines; Institut Universitaire de France; PRECIOSA, Cfdt; Ministry of Industry/ Trade of Czech Republic. ASKPCR; Cerfav; CFTC- CMTE Unique properties obtained through the Meurthe et Mosselle; Maire de Lunéville; CFMA; use of lead in LCG – optical properties, Région Lorraine; Maire de Sarreguemines; aesthetic properties, improved working PRECIOSA; José Lévy; Lyceé Dominique Labroise; properties (increase of the viscosity of the Noé Duchaufour Lawrance; Cfdt; Ministry of material), allows the production of specific Industry/ Trade of Czech Republic; John Rocha; articles. Canning Design; Cerfav; CFTC- CMTE; Academie de CF Properties that enable energy savings in the Meurthe et Mosselle; Maire de Lunéville; PRECIOSA; manufacture of LCG related to the use of Lyceé Dominique Labroise; Cfdt; CFTC- CMTE lead as an intermediate. Low probability of articles to reach the Meurthe et Mosselle; Senateur des Vosges; Senateur waste stream (i.e. to reach end-of-life). de la Moselle; CFMA; Moselle Department; Députée Subsequently, no significant environmental au Parlament européen; Maire de Sarreguemines; impact expected related to collection, PRECIOSA; José Lévy; Lyceé Dominique Labroise; replacement, repairing. Noé Duchaufour Lawrance; Cfdt; ASKPCR; Cerfav; CFE- CGC; CFTC- CMTE; Academie de CF Lead crystal used in EEE is handcrafted Meurthe et Mosselle; Senateur des Vosges; (artisanal) and comprises a cultural heritage Assemblée Nationale; Moselle Department; Région of importance in various EU countries; the Lorraine; Députée au Parlament européen; exemption does not relate to articles in PRECIOSA; Lyceé Dominique Labroise; Gérard mass production. Cherpion; Cfdt; Ministry of Industry/ Trade of Czech Republic; John Rocha; ASKPCR; CFE- CGC; CFTC- CMTE; Academie de CF Many individuals depend on the further manufacture of EEE containing lead crystal Meurthe et Mosselle; Senateur des Vosges; Maire de items for their livelihood – should the Lunéville; Senateur de la Moselle; Moselle exemption be revoked, this could have a Department; Région Lorraine; Députée au Parlament high social impact on such individuals, of européen; Maire de Sarreguemines; PRECIOSA; particular concern in certain peripheral Lyceé Dominique Labroise; Gérard Cherpion; Cfdt; areas where the local population depends Ministry of Industry/ Trade of Czech Republic; on such manufacturing establishments for ASKPCR; CFTC- CMTE employment (e.g. Lorraine in France, North of Bohemia (Kamenicky Senov), etc.). The validity period of Ex. 29 in relation to articles in sub-category 9, industrial TMC monitoring and control instruments.

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 699

31.7 Critical Review

31.7.1 REACH Compliance – Relation to the REACH Regulation Appendix A.1.0 of this report lists Entry 30 in Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation, stipulating that lead compounds shall not be placed on the market, or used, as substances, constituents of other substances, or in mixtures for supply to the general public. Entry 63 restricts the presence of lead and its compounds in various articles. A prerequisite to granting the requested exemption would therefore be to establish whether the intended use of lead in this exemption request might weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by the REACH regulation. In the consultants’ understanding, the restriction for lead compounds under Entry 30 of Annex XVII does not apply to the use of lead in this application. Pb used in lead crystal glass, in the consultants’ point of view is not a supply of lead and its compounds as a substance, mixture or constituent of other mixtures to the general public. The lead oxides used to form the glass undergo a change of form when the ingredients are fused together. As the applicants explain, though its constituents are closely linked together, lead crystal is different from the initial state of its raw materials. In this sense lead is encapsulated in the vitreous material and thus not accessible to the public as such. Pb is part of an article and as such, Entry 30 of Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation would not apply. Entry 63 of Annex XVII restricts the use of lead and its compounds in various articles. Paragraph 1 specifies jewellery in this respect, however paragraph 4(a) specifically excludes “crystal glass as defined in Annex I (categories 1, 2, 3 and 4) to Council Directive 69/493/EEC (*)” in relation to paragraph 1. Paragraph 6 does not allow placing articles on the market which, contain Pb concentrations above 0.05% by weight, where during normal use these could be placed in the mouth by children. Nonetheless, paragraph 7(b) specifically excludes “crystal glass as defined in Annex I (categories 1, 2, 3 and 4) to Directive 69/493/ EEC”; It is thus concluded that this entry would not apply to Pb in lead crystal glass used in EEE. Paragraph 8(k) also further excludes equipment in the scope of RoHS from the paragraph 7 restriction. No other entries, relevant for the use of lead in the requested exemption could be identified in Annex XIV and Annex XVII (status December 2015). Based on the current status of Annexes XIV and XVII of the REACH Regulation, the requested exemption would not weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by the REACH Regulation. An exemption could therefore be granted if other criteria of Art. 5(1)(a) apply.

31.7.2 Scientific and Technical Practicability of Substitution EDG and LEU have requested the renewal of exemption 29 to allow the use of Pb in lead crystal glass when used in EEE. The applicants argue that lead provides unique properties to the crystal glass, which are of importance both in the manufacture of articles as well as in the performance of the product through its use.

700

The properties of the lead crystal glass are explained to be of importance for the end product, as the addition of lead affects optical properties and thus the aesthetic properties of the glass, such as the refractive index and the dispersion of light. This is explained to be important, as it allows designers of articles to create unique products, and is also of importance to consumers judging by the demand for such products on the market. EDG and LEU argue that there are no comparable substitutes for lead crystal glass that would provide the same properties and performance both in the manufacture and in the products themselves. The production of lead crystal glass used in EEE includes a large degree of hand crafting, both in the manufacturing stages, such as blowing and pressing and in the later stages of cold processing such as cutting and polishing. Even when automation is involved in the manufacture, EDG & LEU claim that up to ~80% of the production costs are related to further handcrafting of the articles. The properties of the material are understood to have a large effect on the ability to perform the various stages of the production, particularly in the manual processing stages, and it can be understood that substitutes that have been tested up until now would not allow creating articles of the same complexity. This would also affect the time needed for production and thus respectively the energy consumption (estimated by Saint-Louis to be at least 20-30% lower than were lead-free glass to be applied). It can be understood that the various lead crystal manufacturers have been researching substitutes for many years, and results of this research also show certain progress in this respect. However, it is also understood that an alternative to lead in the glass which is applicable to all stages of the production, is not yet available and that lead crystal glass is at present still the only material that would allow retaining the diverse product range. Where first attempts (production of articles in small scale and testing of their suitability in various processing stages) have been performed with lead-free glasses, it can be followed that results are not yet sufficiently comparable to allow the substitution of lead, and that such results also suggest that substitution at this stage would result in a significant increase of energy costs and use of resources. Though one could argue that for the various EEE articles, in which lead crystal is used, that various alternatives exist – e.g. alternative luminaires – the consultants can follow that such articles would not provide a one-to-one replacement in terms of the appearance of the products. Though this aspect is understood to be of aesthetic nature, being difficult to assess in technical terms, some data has been provided to show that should other types of glass be used to create articles of similar appearance, that the optical properties of importance for the aesthetic properties of the products would not be comparable on the crystal level. Alternative types of glass, regardless of their ability to be used for creating products of the same complexity, show inferior levels in terms of e.g. refractive index, abbe number, dispersion, etc. It is understood that in manufacture, the addition of lead increases the working time of the glass through its impact on the viscosity of the glass and its thermal properties. This facilitates the melting and forming of crystal articles in hot-processing, and more importantly has an impact on the energy consumption related to these production

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 701

stages as the glass does not need to be reheated (re-melted) as often, and as the temperature for reheating is significantly lower than for lead-free glass types. It is also understood that the addition of lead results in a glass that is not as hard, and in this respect the glass crystal also facilitates cold processing of the articles such as cutting, engraving, polishing, etc. Since the glass is softer, it can be processed more easily and in less time for the same amount of units, therefore also reducing the energy consumption related to these stages. Another important aspect in this respect is understood to relate to the softer lead-based glass also resulting in less frequent maintenance and replacement of equipment, which would translate to a lower use of resources where equipment or equipment components need to be replaced.

31.7.3 Environmental Arguments The applicants, as well as some of the stakeholders, who participated in the consultation, explain that in LCG articles, lead is encapsulated within the material and a risk of emissions to the environment during the use and the end-of-life phases is not expected. The risk related to the end-of-life stage is further assessed to be irrelevant, claiming that practices of repair or replacement of the broken parts, of these prestigious and expensive items (e.g. one branch or prism of a luminaire), prevents the discarding of the full EEE application at end-of-life. EDF & LEU thus argue that the probability of LCG EEE articles to reach the waste stream is very small. EDF & LEU have furthermore submitted lead crystal leaching testing results (one report can be viewed in Appendix A.5.0) showing that the risk of lead emissions from such articles is negligible. In the consultants’ view, submitted test results sufficiently show that (under normal use/ environmental conditions) emissions from lead crystal during use and during end-of-life are not expected. As long as not treated with strong acids, release of lead from the vitreous matrix would not be expected. The consultants can also follow that lead crystal articles would typically not reach the waste stream in light of their value. Small parts may become waste when broken and repaired; however it can be followed that typically articles will not be disposed of, but rather sold to antique shops and the likes. This is particularly understood to be the case for EEE articles, which as opposed to tableware are less at risk to break during use (chandeliers and luminaires shall usually be fixed to walls and ceilings, etc.). This means that possible emissions at this stage would be less significant in light of the amount of lead crystal potentially disposed of. Possible emissions of lead at these life cycle stages are thus understood to be sufficiently controlled. A further important aspect raised in relation to environmental impacts is related to the consumption of energy and resources during the manufacture of articles. It is further expected that lower energy consumption would subsequently mean lower emissions related to energy such as greenhouse gases. These aspects have been summarised in Section 31.7.2 and are not discussed here again.

702

31.7.4 Socio-Economic Impacts The applicants and the various stakeholders who participated in the consultation also argue that to revoke the exemption could result in significant social costs, as the production of hand-crafted lead crystal is considered a cultural heritage in many areas of the EU (e.g. Alsace Lorraine in France, Bohemia in the Czech Republic, etc.). Furthermore, it is explained that in areas where this traditional form of hand crafting of LCG is performed, that facilities employ a large number of individuals, whose livelihood would be at risk should the use of LCG in EEE be prohibited. Manufacturers claim that respective market shares of LCG articles used for tableware and for EEE are changing, with a growing importance of EEE in the product portfolio. This would further support that a change to the current exemption could have a significant impact on the LCG sector. The consultants can follow that the artisan manufacture of lead crystal articles has importance both as a cultural heritage and as a source of employment for many individuals. However, it is also possible that a reduced manufacture of lead crystal (i.e., LCG applied in EEE) would in parallel lead to increased manufacture of alternative equipment (alternative luminaires, etc.) and thus to an increase of employment in other sub-sectors. Nonetheless it is difficult to estimate the total possible impacts of a revocation of the exemption, and thus the consultants cannot conclude as to the range of such impacts and their severity in terms of costs for society.

31.7.5 Stakeholder Contributions The stakeholder contributions generally support the request, raising various aspects related to the properties of lead crystal and the unavailability of comparable substitutes. As these aspects are addressed in the summary of information provided by the applicants and by Saint-Louis, further detail is not provided here. The contribution submitted by TMC raises a legal question as to the availability of the current exemption to category 9 equipment. Regardless of TMCs claims as to the availability of Annex III exemptions to sub-category 9 industrial for 7 years starting in 22.7.2017, in the case of Ex. 29 the wording formulation limits its applicability to crystal glass. Though in theory, such glass could be used in Cat. 9 products, this aspect has not been raised by the applicant or other stakeholders to be an area of application. Furthermore, should such glass be used as a component in such EEE, it would still benefit from the exemption as long as it is valid. Should substitutes become available however, it would be of importance to evaluate their applicability in all possible applications at the same time. In this sense, in the consultants opinion, though some Cat. 9 products could enjoy a validity period of the current exemption up till 2024 (Cat. 9 industrial), it would still be considered beneficial to align the exemption validity of all categories. Further supporting this view is the fact that the applicants who represent manufacturers of the relevant articles have not specified Cat. 9 as a category into which their articles fall.

31.7.6 The Scope of the Exemption The consultants can follow that the search for lead-free crystal glass alternatives is still on-going. Furthermore, despite the fact that alternatives are not yet sufficiently

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 703

developed, it can be understood that where tested in small scale, such alternatives would also increase energy and resource consumption related to various production stages. The information made available to support these understandings is, however, based on practices of the artisanal manufacture of lead crystal glass, which involves a large degree of hand-crafting, as practiced for example by Saint-Louis. It is not clear if lead crystal glass articles for which the exemption is needed would also be produced through automated manufacture, nor whether the same argumentation would apply. Furthermore it is currently unclear whether in such articles the same concentration or lower concentrations of lead are present. In this sense, the question arises, whether the exemption should be limited to articles produced through artisanal manufacturing or if different concentrations of lead could be specified. From the information provided, it can be followed that the various benefits related to the addition of lead would be equally relevant as long as similar glass formulas are used. Though the ease of processing related to glasses with a longer working range and glasses that are softer can be understood to be more relevant to hand-crafting, in light of such processes not being “controlled through automation”, the reduced energy and resource consumption are understood to be relevant for both types of manufacture as the production stages would be similar in this respect (fusing temperatures of glass, cold processing with equipment). In this sense if automated production uses similar glass formulas, it can be assumed that the argumentation would apply similarly to such articles. However, if similar formulas are not used and the exemption is not needed for such production, the consultants do not think that it would be practical to exclude such articles from the exemption. The consultants are not aware of a mechanism for differentiating between articles that are hand crafted and articles that are made with automation that could be used by market surveillance to ensure enforcement. In this sense, though it is difficult to determine to what degree the justification is relevant to articles produced with automation, limiting the exemption to hand-crafted articles would not be considered to be practical in terms of its enforcement. It could also limit the ability of manufacturers to combine automated components in some cases in order to increase competitiveness through the reduction of production costs related to hand crafting where this is possible. The consultants thus do not recommend a change of the current exemption wording formulation.

31.7.7 Conclusions Article 5(1)(a) provides that an exemption can be justified if at least one of the following criteria is fulfilled: · their elimination or substitution via design changes or materials and components which do not require any of the materials or substances listed in Annex II is scientifically or technically impracticable; · the reliability of substitutes is not ensured; · the total negative environmental, health and consumer safety impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the total environmental, health and consumer safety benefits thereof.

704

In the consultants’ opinion, it can be followed that substance substitutes for lead in glass are currently not available. Though changes in the ingredients of the glass have been the subject of research for many years, it can be followed that at present such a substitute would not allow sufficient replication of the product portfolio in terms of production of articles with comparable properties. Such a substitute is currently not considered available, early phase-in of a substitution candidate still under investigation would limit both the complexity of articles that could be produced as well as resulting in a significant rise in energy consumption and use of resources related to manufacture. Such a substitution is also not understood to provide comparable products in terms of their optical properties, of importance for the consumer. In parallel, one could argue that the need for lead could be eliminated through the shift to other articles, i.e. other luminaires (possibly not from glass and of different shape and form). If for example the function of a luminaire is only to provide light or also to provide a certain appearance. In the case of crystal luminaires, the applicants have communicated that certain optical properties of the glass are established in the luminaire through the use of lead: a high refractive index, a high dispersion and transmission of light and sharp colour transition. In this sense, for an alternative luminaire to be considered as a one-to-one replacement, it would need to have similar properties and to perform on a comparable level. Where alternative glass types are used to produce crystals for use in the assembly of similar luminaires, it can be understood from the applicant that such products do not provide similar performance. It has also been communicated that the processing of lead crystal glass further allows creating items of higher complexity in this respect.

31.8 Recommendation The justification for the renewal of Ex. 29 is based on the observation that alternatives for EEE articles with lead crystal glass do not meet the technical criteria representing the specific optical properties. If these properties can be judged as indispensable, then an exemption would be considered to be justified, as possible (substance) substitutes for lead in glass currently do not allow manufacturing comparable articles and would also result in a higher consumption of energy and other resources. Such alternatives would not compare in terms of optical properties and complexity of design should they be manufactured with lead-free glass. Using lead-free alternatives in the actual hand- crafted manufacture stages of LCG would not allow completing all manufacture stages at sufficient quality, while also resulting in an additional impact in terms of energy consumption and resource use. In this case, other EEE articles fulfilling similar functions (e.g., a luminaire which functions in providing light) would not be considered as one-to- one replacements and thus also not as alternatives. On this basis, it is recommended to grant the exemption renewal for the maximum duration according to Article 5(2), as information suggests that a period of at least 10 years could be needed before substitutes may become available. In this case, the following formulation and duration would be recommended for the exemption.

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 705

Exemption n. 29 Duration*

For Cat. 1-10: 21 July 2021 Lead bound in crystal glass as defined in Directive 69/493/EEC For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: 21 July 2023** For Sub-Cat. industrial: 21 July 2024** Note: *As it can be understood that the exemption duration may vary for various categories on the basis of Article 5(2), expiration dates have been specified here for all categories either on the basis of the requested duration in the exemption request which the consultants perceive to be justified, or on the basis of the validity periods specified in Article 5(2) for categories, which are newly in scope. ** In contrast, the applicants have not specified the exemption to be relevant for EEE of categories 8 and 9, and in the consultants view it would be recommended to align the exemption duration for all EEE, including Sub. Cat. in-vitro and Sub-Cat. 9 industrial, should EEE in these categories make use of the exemption despite lacking evidence thereof.

706

31.9 References Exemption 29 ASKPCR (2015) Association of the Glass and Ceramic Industry of the Czech Republic, submitted 16.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 9/Ex_29_ASKPCR_16102015.pdf Canning Design (2015) Canning Design Ltd., submitted 16.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 9/Ex_29_CanningDesign_Consultation_Document151015.pdf Cerfav (2015) CRT - Verre, submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 9/Ex_29_Cerfav_20151016.pdf Cfdt (2015) La Fédération Chemistry - Energy of the CFDT Group, Consultation Questionnaire Exemption no. 29, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/ RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/Ex_29_CFDT_ROHS_20151015_.pdf CFE-CGC (2015) CFE-CGC Chimie, French trade union, submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 9/Ex_29_CFE-CGC_Chimie_reponses_questions_20151016.pdf CFMA (2015) Confédération française des métiers d'art de l'exellence et du luxe- French Confederation of Arts and Crafts, Application to exemption No 29 of crystal glass a part oft he directive RoHS 69/493/EEC, submitted 13.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 9/Contribution_by_confederation_francaise.pdf CFTC-CMTE (2015) Fédération CFTC Chimie Mies Textile Energie, submitted 19.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 9/Ex_29_FEDERATION_CFTC-CMTE_Position_20151016_ENG.pdf Députée au Parlament européen (2015) Parlament Européen, Députée Européene ADLE/ Grand Est- France (Députée au Parlament européen, Renouvellement d’exemption- Référence Exemption No 29, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 9/20151012_-Consultation_publique_- _Exemption_Request_For_Exemption_no._29_ROHS.pdf EDG & LEU (2015b) European Domestic Glass and LightingEurope, Answers to 1st Clarification Questions regarding Exemption 29 in Annex III of Directive 2011/65/EU, submitted on 14.08.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 9/20150814_Ex_29_EDG___LEU_1st_round_of_Clarification-Answers_final-Public.pdf

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 707

EDG & LEU (2015b) European Domestic Glass and LightingEurope, Answers to 1st Clarification Questions regarding Exemption 29 in Annex III of Directive 2011/65/EU, submitted on 14.08.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 9/20150814_Ex_29_EDG___LEU_1st_round_of_Clarification-Answers_final-Public.pdf EDG (2016a) European Domestic Glass, Answers to 2nd clarification questions, submitted per email on 29.1.2016. Gérard Cherpion (2015) Assemblée Nationale, Gérard Cherpion, Member of the French Parliament, Member of the regional Council of the region Lorraine, General comments related to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: Assemblée Nationale, Gérard Cherpion, Member of the French Parliament, Member of the regional Council of the region Lorraine Institut Universitaire de France (2015) Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Chimie de Clermont- Ferrand, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 9/Contribution_Exe_29.pdf John Rocha (2015) Designer, CBE, 10 Ely Place, Dublin, Ireland, submitted 16.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 9/Ex_29_John_Rocha_Contribution__20151016.pdf José Lévy (2015) Design expert, General comments to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 9/Lettre_Jos_Levy_V2__2_.pdf Le Senateur de la Moselle(2015) Philippe Leroy, Senat, Application to exemption No 29 of crystal glass a part of the directive RoHS 69/493/EEC, submitted 13.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 9/contribution_by_philippe_leroy.pdf Le Senateur des Vosges (2015) Jackie Pierre, Senat, Exemption Request for Exemption No 29 (renewal request), submitted 07.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 9/051015_Directive_ROHS_-_CONSULTATION_CE_cabinet_Oeko_exemption_29.pdf Lyceé Dominique Labroise (2015) The Headmaster, F. Vignola, General comments to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 9/20151015094719390.pdf Maire de Lunéville (2015) Assemblée Nationale, Jacques Lamblin, Député de Meurthe et Moselle, Maire de Lunéville, General comments related to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 12.10.2015, available under:

708

http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 9/Courrier_RoHS_anglais.pdf Maire de Sarreguemines (2015) Assemblée Nationale, Céleste Lett, Député de la Moselle, General comments related to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 9/contribution_by_celeste_LETT.pdf Meurthe et Mosselle (2015) Direction de l’Economie Solidaire et de l’Insertion, Conseil Départemental de Meurthe-et-Moselle, Application to exempt No 29 of Crystal Glass as a Part of the Directive RoHS 69/493/EEC, submitted 29.9.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 9/Contribution_by_Direction_de_l_Economie_Solidaire_et_de_l_Insertion.pdf Ministry of Industry/Trade of Czech Republic (2015) Vice Minister, Ing. Eduard Muricky, General Comments to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 16.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/ RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/Ex_29_Ministry_of_Industry_and_Trade_of_the_Czech _Republic_contribution_20151016.pdf Moselle Department (2015) Moselle Department Council, Le president, General comments to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 14.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 9/Ex_29_Department_Moselle_Council_14102015_Oko-Institut.pdf Noé Duchaufour Lawrance (2015) pour Néonata S.A.R.L., General comments to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 9/Ex_29_NOEDUCHAUFOURLAWRANCE_20151015.pdf PRECIOSA (2015) PRECIOSA- LUSTRY, a.s., Lucie Karlova, President of Managing Board, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_2 9/Contribution-Preciosa_EN-ws___2_.pdf Région Lorraine(2015) Le Président du Conseil Régional de Lorraine, Sénateur de la Moselle, General comments to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 15.10.2015, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/ RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_29/translation.pdf Saint-Louis (2015a) Answers to clarification questions following visit at the Saint-Louis manufacturing facility, sent per email 15.1.2016 TMC (2015) Test and Measurement Coalition, General comments related to RoHS exemption package 9, submitted 16.10.2016, available under: http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_9/Exemption_1 _a- e_/General_Contribution_Test___Measurement_Coalition_package_9_exemptions_2 0151016.pdf

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 709

APPENDICES

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 753

A.1.0 Appendix 1: Relevant REACH Regulation Entries

Relevant annexes and processes related to the REACH Regulation have been cross- checked to clarify: · In what cases granting an exemption could “weaken the environmental and health protection afforded by Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006” (Article 5(1)(a), pg.1) · Where processes related to the REACH regulation should be followed to understand where such cases may become relevant in the future; The last consolidated version has been consulted in this respect, published on 2 February 2016. Compiled information in this respect has been included, with short clarifications where relevant, in the following tables: Table A. 1 lists those substances appearing in Annex XIV, subject to Authorisation, which are relevant to the RoHS substances dealt with in the requests evaluated in this project. As can be seen, at present, exemptions have not been granted for the use of these substances. Table A. 1: Relevant Entries from Annex XIV: The List of Substances Subject to Authorization Designation of the substance, of the Transitional arrangements Exempted (categories group of substances, or of the mixture Latest application Sunset date ( 2 ) of) uses date ( 1 ) Uses in the immediate packaging of medicinal 4. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) products covered under EC No: 204-211-0 21 August 2013 21 February 2015 Regulation (EC) No CAS No: 117-81-7 726/2004, Directive 2001/82/EC, and/or Directive 2001/83/EC. Uses in the immediate packaging of medicinal 5. Benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP) products covered under EC No: 201-622-7 21 August 2013 21 February 2015 Regulation (EC) No CAS No: 85-68-7 726/2004, Directive 2001/82/EC, and/or Directive 2001/83/EC. Uses in the immediate packaging of medicinal 6. Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) products covered under EC No: 201-557-4 21 August 2013 21 February 2015 Regulation (EC) No CAS No: 84-74-2 726/2004, Directive 2001/82/EC, and/or Directive 2001/83/EC. 7. Diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP) EC No: 201-553-2 21 August 2013 21 February 2015 CAS No: 84-69-5 10. Lead chromate 21 Nov 2013 21 May 2015 - EC No: 231-846-0

754

Designation of the substance, of the Transitional arrangements Exempted (categories group of substances, or of the mixture Latest application Sunset date ( 2 ) of) uses date ( 1 ) CAS No: 7758-97-6 11. Lead sulfochromate yellow (C.I. Pigment Yellow 34) 21 Nov 2013 21 May 2015 - EC No: 215-693-7 CAS No: 1344-37-2 12. Lead chromate molybdate sulphate red (C.I. Pigment Red 104) 21 Nov 2013 21 May 2015 - EC No: 235-759-9 CAS No: 12656-85-8 16. Chromium trioxide EC No: 215-607-8 21 Mar 2016 21 Sep 2017 - CAS No: 1333-82-0 17. Acids generated from chromium trioxide and their oligomers Group containing: Chromic acid EC No: 231-801-5 CAS No: 7738-94-5 Dichromic acid 21 Mar 2016 21 Sep 2017 - EC No: 236-881-5 CAS No: 13530-68-2 Oligomers of chromic acid and dichromic acid EC No: not yet assigned CAS No: not yet assigned 18. Sodium dichromate EC No: 234-190-3 21 Mar 2016 21 Sep 2017 - CAS No: 7789-12-0 10588-01-9 19. Potassium dichromate EC No: 231-906-6 21 Mar 2016 21 Sep 2017 - CAS No: 7778-50-9 20. Ammonium dichromate EC No: 232-143-1 21 Mar 2016 21 Sep 2017 - CAS No: 7789-09-5 21. Potassium chromate EC No: 232-140-5 21 Mar 2016 21 Sep 2017 CAS No: 7789-00-6 22. Sodium chromate EC No: 231-889-5 21 Mar 2016 21 Sep 2017 CAS No: 7775-11-3 28. Dichromium tris(-chromate) EC No: 246-356-2 22. July 2017 22 January 2019 CAS No: 24613-89-6 29. Strontium chromate EC No: 232-142-6 CAS 22 July 2017 22 January 2019 No: 7789-06-2 30. Potassium hydroxyoctaoxodizincatedichromate 22 July 2017 22 January 2019 EC No: 234-329-8 CAS No: 11103-86-9 31. Pentazinc chromate octahydroxide EC No: 256-418-0 22 July 2017 22 January 2019 CAS No: 49663-84-5

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 755

For the substances currently restricted according to RoHS Annex II: cadmium, hexavalent chromium, lead, mercury, polybrominated biphenyls and polybrominated diphenyl ethers and their compounds, we have found that some relevant entries are listed in Annex XVII of the REACH Regulation. The conditions of restriction are presented in Table A. 2 below. Additionally, some amendments have been decided upon, and are still to be included in the concise version. These may be seen in Table A. 3. Table A. 2: Conditions of Restriction in REACH Annex XVII for RoHS Substances and Compounds

Designation of the substance, of Conditions of restriction the group of substances or of the mixture 8. Polybromobiphenyls; 1. Shall not be used in textile articles, such as garments, undergarments and Polybrominatedbiphenyls (PBB) linen, intended to come into contact with the skin. CAS No 59536-65-1 2. Articles not complying with paragraph 1 shall not be placed on the market. 16. Lead carbonates: (a) Neutral anhydrous carbonate Shall not be placed on the market, or used, as substances or in mixtures, where (PbCO 3 ) the substance or mixture is intended for use as paint. CAS No 598-63-0 However, Member States may, in accordance with the provisions of EC No 209-943-4 International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 13, permit the use on their territory of the substance or mixture for the restoration and maintenance of (b) Trilead-bis(carbonate)- works of art and historic buildings and their interiors, as well as the placing on dihydroxide 2Pb CO 3 -Pb(OH) 2 the market for such use. Where a Member State makes use of this derogation, it CAS No 1319-46-6 shall inform the Commission thereof. EC No 215-290-6 17. Lead sulphates: Shall not be placed on the market, or used, as substances or in mixtures, where (a) PbSO 4 the substance or mixture is intended for use as paint. CAS No 7446-14-2 However, Member States may, in accordance with the provisions of EC No 231-198-9 International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 13, permit the use on their territory of the substance or mixture for the restoration and maintenance of (b) Pb x SO 4 works of art and historic buildings and their interiors, as well as the placing on CAS No 15739-80-7 the market for such use. Where a Member State makes use of this derogation, it EC No 239-831-0 shall inform the Commission thereof. Shall not be placed on the market, or used, as substances or in mixtures where the substance or mixture is intended for use: (a) to prevent the fouling by micro-organisms, plants or animals of: — the hulls of boats, — cages, floats, nets and any other appliances or equipment used for fish 18. Mercury compounds or shellfish farming, — any totally or partly submerged appliances or equipment; (b) in the preservation of wood; (c) in the impregnation of heavy-duty industrial textiles and yarn intended for their manufacture; (d) in the treatment of industrial waters, irrespective of their use. 1. Shall not be placed on the market: (a) in fever thermometers; 18a. Mercury (b) in other measuring devices intended for sale to the general public (such as manometers, barometers, sphygmomanometers, thermometers other than CAS No 7439-97-6 fever thermometers). EC No 231-106-7 2. The restriction in paragraph 1 shall not apply to measuring devices that were in use in the Community before 3 April 2009. However Member States may restrict or prohibit the placing on the market of such measuring devices.

756

Designation of the substance, of Conditions of restriction the group of substances or of the mixture 3. The restriction in paragraph 1(b) shall not apply to: (a) measuring devices more than 50 years old on 3 October 2007; (b) barometers (except barometers within point (a)) until 3 October 2009. 5. The following mercury-containing measuring devices intended for industrial and professional uses shall not be placed on the market after 10 April 2014: (a) barometers; (b) hygrometers; (c) manometers; (d) sphygmomanometers; (e) strain gauges to be used with plethysmographs; (f) tensiometers; (g) thermometers and other non-electrical thermometric applications. The restriction shall also apply to measuring devices under points (a) to (g) which are placed on the market empty if intended to be filled with mercury. 6. The restriction in paragraph 5 shall not apply to: (a) sphygmomanometers to be used: (i) in epidemiological studies which are ongoing on 10 October 2012; (ii) as reference standards in clinical validation studies of mercury-free sphygmomanometers; (b) thermometers exclusively intended to perform tests according to standards that require the use of mercury thermometers until 10 October 2017; (c) mercury triple point cells which are used for the calibration of platinum resistance thermometers. 7. The following mercury-using measuring devices intended for professional and industrial uses shall not be placed on the market after 10 April 2014: (a) mercury pycnometers; (b) mercury metering devices for determination of the softening point. 8. The restrictions in paragraphs 5 and 7 shall not apply to: (a) measuring devices more than 50 years old on 3 October 2007; (b) measuring devices which are to be displayed in public exhibitions for cultural and historical purposes. For the purpose of this entry, the codes and chapters indicated in square brackets are the codes and chapters of the tariff and statistical nomenclature of Common Customs Tariff as established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1). 1. Shall not be used in mixtures and articles produced from the following synthetic organic polymers (hereafter referred to as plastic material): — polymers or copolymers of vinyl chloride (PVC) [3904 10] [3904 21] — polyurethane (PUR) [3909 50] — low-density polyethylene (LDPE), with the exception of low-density 23. Cadmium and its compounds polyethylene used for the production of coloured masterbatch [3901 10] CAS No 7440-43-9 — cellulose acetate (CA) [3912 11] EC No 231-152-8 — cellulose acetate butyrate (CAB) [3912 11] — epoxy resins [3907 30] — melamine-formaldehyde (MF) resins [3909 20] — urea-formaldehyde (UF) resins [3909 10] — unsaturated polyesters (UP) [3907 91] — polyethylene terephthalate (PET) [3907 60] — polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) — transparent/general-purpose polystyrene [3903 11] — acrylonitrile methylmethacrylate (AMMA)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 757

Designation of the substance, of Conditions of restriction the group of substances or of the mixture — cross-linked polyethylene (VPE) — high-impact polystyrene — polypropylene (PP) [3902 10] Mixtures and articles produced from plastic material as listed above shall not be placed on the market if the concentration of cadmium (expressed as Cd metal) is equal to or greater than 0,01 % by weight of the plastic material. By way of derogation, the second subparagraph shall not apply to articles placed on the market before 10 December 2011. The first and second subparagraphs apply without prejudice to Council Directive 94/62/EC (13) and acts adopted on its basis. By 19 November 2012, in accordance with Article 69, the Commission shall ask the European Chemicals Agency to prepare a dossier conforming to the requirements of Annex XV in order to assess whether the use of cadmium and its compounds in plastic material, other than that listed in subparagraph 1, should be restricted. 2. Shall not be used in paints [3208] [3209]. For paints with a zinc content exceeding 10 % by weight of the paint, the concentration of cadmium (expressed as Cd metal) shall not be equal to or greater than 0,1 % by weight. Painted articles shall not be placed on the market if the concentration of cadmium (expressed as Cd metal) is equal to or greater than 0,1 % by weight of the paint on the painted article. 3. By way of derogation, paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to articles coloured with mixtures containing cadmium for safety reasons. 4. By way of derogation, paragraph 1, second subparagraph shall not apply to: — mixtures produced from PVC waste, hereinafter referred to as ‘recovered PVC’, — mixtures and articles containing recovered PVC if their concentration of cadmium (expressed as Cd metal) does not exceed 0,1 % by weight of the plastic material in the following rigid PVC applications: — (a) profiles and rigid sheets for building applications; (b) doors, windows, shutters, walls, blinds, fences, and roof gutters; (c) decks and terraces; (d) cable ducts; (e) pipes for non-drinking water if the recovered PVC is used in the middle layer of a multilayer pipe and is entirely covered with a layer of newly produced PVC in compliance with paragraph 1 above. Suppliers shall ensure, before the placing on the market of mixtures and articles containing recovered PVC for the first time, that these are visibly, legibly and indelibly marked as follows: ‘Contains recovered PVC’ or with the following pictogram:

In accordance with Article 69 of this Regulation, the derogation granted in paragraph 4 will be reviewed, in particular with a view to reducing the limit

758

Designation of the substance, of Conditions of restriction the group of substances or of the mixture value for cadmium and to reassess the derogation for the applications listed in points (a) to (e), by 31 December 2017. 5. For the purpose of this entry, ‘cadmium plating’ means any deposit or coating of metallic cadmium on a metallic surface. Shall not be used for cadmium plating metallic articles or components of the articles used in the following sectors/applications: (a) equipment and machinery for: — food production [8210] [8417 20] [8419 81] [8421 11] [8421 22] [8422] [8435] [8437] [8438] [8476 11] — agriculture [8419 31] [8424 81] [8432] [8433] [8434] [8436] — cooling and freezing [8418] — printing and book-binding [8440] [8442] [8443] (b) equipment and machinery for the production of: — household goods [7321] [8421 12] [8450] [8509] [8516] — furniture [8465] [8466] [9401] [9402] [9403] [9404] — sanitary ware [7324] — central heating and air conditioning plant [7322] [8403] [8404] [8415] In any case, whatever their use or intended final purpose, the placing on the market of cadmium-plated articles or components of such articles used in the sectors/applications listed in points (a) and (b) above and of articles manufactured in the sectors listed in point (b) above is prohibited. 6. The provisions referred to in paragraph 5 shall also be applicable to cadmium- plated articles or components of such articles when used in the sectors/applications listed in points (a) and (b) below and to articles manufactured in the sectors listed in (b) below: (a) equipment and machinery for the production of: — paper and board [8419 32] [8439] [8441] textiles and clothing [8444] [8445] [8447] [8448] [8449] [8451] [8452] (b) equipment and machinery for the production of: — industrial handling equipment and machinery [8425] [8426] [8427] [8428] [8429] [8430] [8431] — road and agricultural vehicles [chapter 87] — rolling stock [chapter 86] — vessels [chapter 89] 7. However, the restrictions in paragraphs 5 and 6 shall not apply to: — articles and components of the articles used in the aeronautical, aerospace, mining, offshore and nuclear sectors whose applications require high safety standards and in safety devices in road and agricultural vehicles, rolling stock and vessels, — electrical contacts in any sector of use, where that is necessary to ensure the reliability required of the apparatus on which they are installed. 8. Shall not be used in brazing fillers in concentration equal to or greater than 0,01 % by weight. Brazing fillers shall not be placed on the market if the concentration of cadmium (expressed as Cd metal) is equal to or greater than 0,01 % by weight. For the purpose of this paragraph brazing shall mean a joining technique using alloys and undertaken at temperatures above 450 °C. 9. By way of derogation, paragraph 8 shall not apply to brazing fillers used in defence and aerospace applications and to brazing fillers used for safety reasons. 10. Shall not be used or placed on the market if the concentration is equal to or

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 759

Designation of the substance, of Conditions of restriction the group of substances or of the mixture greater than 0,01 % by weight of the metal in: (i) metal beads and other metal components for jewellery making; (ii) metal parts of jewellery and imitation jewellery articles and hair accessories, including: — bracelets, necklaces and rings, — piercing jewellery, — wrist-watches and wrist-wear, — brooches and cufflinks. 11. By way of derogation, paragraph 10 shall not apply to articles placed on the market before 10 December 2011 and jewellery more than 50 years old on 10 December 2011. 28. Substances which appear in Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 classified as carcinogen category 1A or 1B (Table 3.1) or carcinogen category Without prejudice to the other parts of this Annex the following shall apply to 1 or 2 (Table 3.2) and listed as entries 28 to 30: follows: 1. Shall not be placed on the market, or used, — Carcinogen category 1A (Table — as substances, 3.1)/carcinogen category 1 (Table — as constituents of other substances, or, 3.2) listed in Appendix 1 — in mixtures, — Carcinogen category 1B (Table 3.1)/carcinogen category 2 (Table for supply to the general public when the individual concentration in the 3.2) listed in Appendix 2: substance or mixture is equal to or greater than: Chromium (VI) trioxide — either the relevant specific concentration limit specified in Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, or, Zinc chromates including zinc potassium chromate — the relevant generic concentration limit specified in Part 3 of Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. Nickel chromate Without prejudice to the implementation of other Community provisions Nickel dichromate relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of substances and mixtures, Potassium dichromate suppliers shall ensure before the placing on the market that the packaging of Ammonium dichromate such substances and mixtures is marked visibly, legibly and indelibly as follows: Sodium dichromate 2. By way of derogation, paragraph 1 shall not apply to: Chromyl dichloride; chromic (a) medicinal or veterinary products as defined by Directive 2001/82/EC and oxychloride Directive 2001/83/EC; Potassium chromate (b) cosmetic products as defined by Directive 76/768/EEC; Calcium chromate (c) the following fuels and oil products: Strontium chromate — motor fuels which are covered by Directive 98/70/EC, Chromium (VI) compounds, with — mineral oil products intended for use as fuel in mobile or fixed combustion the exception of barium chromate plants, and of compounds specified — fuels sold in closed systems (e.g. liquid gas bottles); elsewhere in Annex VI to (d) artists’ paints covered by Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008; Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (e) the substances listed in Appendix 11, column 1, for the applications or uses Chromium III chromate; chromic listed in Appendix 11, column 2. Where a date is specified in column 2 of chromate Appendix 11, the derogation shall apply until the said date. Sodium chromate Cadmium oxide Cadmium chloride Cadmium fluoride Cadmium Sulphate

760

Designation of the substance, of Conditions of restriction the group of substances or of the mixture Cadmium sulphide Cadmium (pyrophoric) Chromium (VI) trioxide Lead Chromate Lead hydrogen arsenate Silicic acid, lead nickel salt Lead sulfochromate yellow; C.I. Pigment Yellow 34; Lead chromate molybdate sulfate red; C.I. Pigment Red 104; 29. Substances which appear in Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 classified as germ cell mutagen category 1A or 1B (Table 3.1) or mutagen category 1 or 2 (Table 3.2) and listed as follows: — Mutagen category 1A (Table 3.1)/mutagen category 1 (Table 3.2) listed in Appendix 3 — Mutagen category 1B (Table 3.1)/mutagen category 2 (Table 3.2) listed in Appendix 4 Cadmium chloride Cadmium fluoride Cadmium Sulphate Chromium (VI) trioxide Potassium dichromate Ammonium dichromate Sodium dichromate Chromyl dichloride; chromic oxychloride Potassium chromate Sodium chromate 30. Substances which appear in Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 classified as toxic to reproduction category 1A or 1B (Table 3.1) or toxic to reproduction category 1 or 2 (Table 3.2) and listed as follows: — Reproductive toxicant category 1A adverse effects on sexual function and fertility or on development (Table 3.1) or reproductive toxicant category 1 with R60 (May impair fertility) or R61 (May cause harm to the unborn child) (Table 3.2) listed in Appendix 5

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 761

Designation of the substance, of Conditions of restriction the group of substances or of the mixture — Reproductive toxicant category 1B adverse effects on sexual function and fertility or on development (Table 3.1) or reproductive toxicant category 2 with R60 (May impair fertility) or R61 (May cause harm to the unborn child) (Table 3.2) listed in Appendix 6: Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate; di-(2- ethylhexyl) phthalate; DEHP Benzyl butyl phthalate; BBP Dibutyl phthalate; DBP Diisobutyl phthalate Cadmium chloride Cadmium fluoride Cadmium Sulphate Potassium dichromate Ammonium dichromate Sodium dichromate Sodium chromate Nickel dichromate Lead compounds with the exception of those specified elsewhere in this Annex Lead hydrogen arsenate Lead acetate Lead alkyls Lead azide Lead Chromate Lead di(acetate) Lead hydrogen arsenate Lead 2,4,6-trinitroresorcinoxide, lead styphnate Lead(II) methane- sulphonate Trilead bis- (orthophosphate) Lead hexa-fluorosilicate Mercury Silicic acid, lead nickel salt 1. Cement and cement-containing mixtures shall not be placed on the market, or used, if they contain, when hydrated, more than 2 mg/kg (0,0002 %) soluble chromium VI of the total dry weight of the cement. 2. If reducing agents are used, then without prejudice to the application of other Community provisions on the classification, packaging and labelling of substances and mixtures, suppliers shall ensure before the placing on the 47. Chromium VI compounds market that the packaging of cement or cement-containing mixtures is visibly, legibly and indelibly marked with information on the packing date, as well as on the storage conditions and the storage period appropriate to maintaining the activity of the reducing agent and to keeping the content of soluble chromium VI below the limit indicated in paragraph 1. 3. By way of derogation, paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to the placing on the market for, and use in, controlled closed and totally automated processes in which cement and cement-containing mixtures are handled solely by machines

762

Designation of the substance, of Conditions of restriction the group of substances or of the mixture and in which there is no possibility of contact with the skin. 4. The standard adopted by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) for testing the water-soluble chromium (VI) content of cement and cement- containing mixtures shall be used as the test method for demonstrating conformity with paragraph 1. 5. Leather articles coming into contact with the skin shall not be placed on the market where they contain chromium VI in concentrations equal to or greater than 3 mg/kg (0,0003 % by weight) of the total dry weight of the leather. 6. Articles containing leather parts coming into contact with the skin shall not be placed on the market where any of those leather parts contains chromium VI in concentrations equal to or greater than 3 mg/kg (0,0003 % by weight) of the total dry weight of that leather part. 7. Paragraphs 5 and 6 shall not apply to the placing on the market of second- hand articles which were in end-use in the Union before 1 May 2015. 51. The following phthalates (or other CAS and EC numbers covering the substance): (a) Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 1. Shall not be used as substances or in mixtures, in concentrations greater than (DEHP) 0,1 % by weight of the plasticised material, in toys and childcare articles. CAS No 117-81-7 2. Toys and childcare articles containing these phthalates in a concentration EC No 204-211-0 greater than 0,1 % by weight of the plasticised material shall not be placed on the market. (b) Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) 4. For the purpose of this entry ‘childcare article’ shall mean any product CAS No 84-74-2 intended to facilitate sleep, relaxation, hygiene, the feeding of children or EC No 201-557-4 sucking on the part of children. (c) Benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP) CAS No 85-68-7 EC No 201-622-7 1. Shall not be placed on the market or used in any individual part of jewellery articles if the concentration of lead (expressed as metal) in such a part is equal to or greater than 0,05 % by weight. 2. For the purposes of paragraph 1: (i) ‘jewellery articles’ shall include jewellery and imitation jewellery articles and hair accessories, including: (a) bracelets, necklaces and rings; (b) piercing jewellery; (c) wrist watches and wrist-wear; (d) brooches and cufflinks; 63. Lead and its compounds (ii) ‘any individual part’ shall include the materials from which the jewellery is made, as well as the individual components of the jewellery articles. CAS No 7439-92-1 EC No 231-100- 4 3. Paragraph 1 shall also apply to individual parts when placed on the market or used for jewellery-making. 4. By way of derogation, paragraph 1 shall not apply to: (a) crystal glass as defined in Annex I (categories 1, 2, 3 and 4) to Council Directive 69/493/EEC (*); (b) internal components of watch timepieces inaccessible to consumers; (c) non-synthetic or reconstructed precious and semiprecious stones (CN code 7103, as established by Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87), unless they have been treated with lead or its compounds or mixtures containing these substances; (d) enamels, defined as vitrifiable mixtures resulting from the fusion, vitrification or sintering of minerals melted at a temperature of at least 500 °C. 5. By way of derogation, paragraph 1 shall not apply to jewellery articles placed

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 763

Designation of the substance, of Conditions of restriction the group of substances or of the mixture on the market for the first time before 9 October 2013 and jewellery articles articles produced before 10 December 1961. 6. By 9 October 2017, the Commission shall re-evaluate paragraphs 1 to 5 of this entry in the light of new scientific information, including the availability of alternatives and the migration of lead from the articles referred to in paragraph 1 and, if appropriate, modify this entry accordingly. 7. Shall not be placed on the market or used in articles supplied to the general public, if the concentration of lead (expressed as metal) in those articles or accessible parts thereof is equal to or greater than 0,05 % by weight, and those articles or accessible parts thereof may, during normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use, be placed in the mouth by children. That limit shall not apply where it can be demonstrated that the rate of lead release from such an article or any such accessible part of an article, whether coated or uncoated, does not exceed 0,05 μg/cm 2 per hour (equivalent to 0,05 μg/g/h), and, for coated articles, that the coating is sufficient to ensure that this release rate is not exceeded for a period of at least two years of normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use of the article. For the purposes of this paragraph, it is considered that an article or accessible part of an article may be placed in the mouth by children if it is smaller than 5 cm in one dimension or has a detachable or protruding part of that size. 8. By way of derogation, paragraph 7 shall not apply to: (a) jewellery articles covered by paragraph 1; (b) crystal glass as defined in Annex I (categories 1, 2, 3 and 4) to Directive 69/493/ EEC; (c) non-synthetic or reconstructed precious and semi-precious stones (CN code 7103 as established by Regulation (EEC) No 2658/ 87) unless they have been treated with lead or its compounds or mixtures containing these substances; (d) enamels, defined as vitrifiable mixtures resulting from the fusion, vitrification or sintering of mineral melted at a temperature of at least 500 ° C; (e) keys and locks, including padlocks; (f) musical instruments; (g) articles and parts of articles comprising brass alloys, if the concentration of lead (expressed as metal) in the brass alloy does not exceed 0,5 % by weight; (h) the tips of writing instruments (i) religious articles; (j) portable zinc-carbon batteries and button cell batteries; (k) articles within the scope of: (i) Directive 94/62/EC; (ii) Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004; (iii) Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (**); (iv) Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (***) 9. By 1 July 2019, the Commission shall re-evaluate paragraphs 7 and 8(e), (f), (i) and (j) of this entry in the light of new scientific information, including the availability of alternatives and the migration of lead from the articles referred to in paragraph 7, including the requirement on coating integrity, and, if appropriate, modify this entry accordingly. 10. By way of derogation paragraph 7 shall not apply to articles placed on the market for the first time before 1 June 2016. (*) OJ L 326, 29.12.1969, p. 36. (**) Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys (OJ L 170, 30.6.2009, p. 1). (***) Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and e l e c t r o n i c e q u i p m e n t ( O J L 1 7 4 , 1.7.2011, p. 88).

764

Table A. 3: Summary of Relevant Amendments to Annexes Not Updated in the Last Concise Version of the REACH Regulation

Designation of the substance, of the group Conditions of restriction Amended Amendment of substances, or of the mixture Annex date Addition of Entry 62 concerning: (a) Phenylmercury acetate EC No: 200-532-5 CAS No: 62-38-4 1. Shall not be manufactured, placed on the market or used as substances or (b) Phenylmercury propionate in mixtures after 10 October 2017 if EC No: 203-094-3 the concentration of mercury in the CAS No: 103-27-5 mixtures is equal to or greater than 0,01% by weight. (c) Phenylmercury 2-ethylhexanoate Annex XVII, 2. Articles or any parts thereof 20 Sep 2012 EC No: 236-326-7 entry 62 containing one or more of these CAS No: 13302-00-6 substances shall not be placed on the (d) Phenylmercury octanoate market after 10 October 2017 if the EC No: - concentration of mercury in the articles or any part thereof is equal to CAS No: 13864-38-5 or greater than 0,01% by weight.’ (e) Phenylmercury neodecanoate EC No: 247-783-7 CAS No: 26545-49-3

As of 28 September 2015, the REACH Regulation Candidate list includes those substances relevant for RoHS listed in Table A. 4 (i.e., proceedings concerning the addition of these substances to the Authorisation list (Annex XIV) have begun and shall be followed by the evaluation team to determine possible discrepancies with future requests of exemption from RoHS (new exemptions, renewals and revocations))1957: Table A. 4: Summary of Relevant Substances Currently on the REACH Candidate List Substance Name EC No. CAS No. Date of Reason for inclusion Inclusion Carcinogenic (Article 57 a); Mutagenic (Article 57 b); Toxic for 17 reproduction (Article 57 c); Cadmium fluoride 232-222-0 7790-79-6 December 2014 Equivalent level of concern having probable serious effects to human health (Article 57 f) Carcinogenic (Article 57 a); Mutagenic (Article 57 b); Toxic for 10124-36-4 17 reproduction (Article 57 c); Cadmium sulphate 233-331-6 31119-53-6 December Equivalent level of concern 2014 having probable serious effects to human health (Article 57 f) 16 June Cadmium chloride 233-296-7 10108-64-2 Carcinogenic (Article 57a); 2014

1957 Updated according to http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/candidate-list-table

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 765

Substance Name EC No. CAS No. Date of Reason for inclusion Inclusion Carcinogenic (Article 57a); Equivalent level of concern Cadmium sulphide 215-147-8 1306-23-6 16 Dec 2013 having probable serious effects to human health (Article 57 f) Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 Lead di(acetate) 206-104-4 301-04-2 16 Dec 2013 c); Carcinogenic (Article 57a); Equivalent level of concern Cadmium 231-152-8 7440-43-9 20 Jun 2013 having probable serious effects to human health (Article 57 f) Carcinogenic (Article 57a); Equivalent level of concern Cadmium oxide 215-146-2 1306-19-0 20 Jun 2013 having probable serious effects to human health (Article 57 f) Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 Pyrochlore, antimony lead yellow 232-382-1 8012-00-8 19 Dec 2012 c) Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 Lead bis(tetrafluoroborate) 237-486-0 13814-96-5 19 Dec 2012 c) Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 Lead dinitrate 233-245-9 10099-74-8 19 Dec 2012 c) Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 Silicic acid, lead salt 234-363-3 11120-22-2 19 Dec 2012 c) Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 Lead titanium zirconium oxide 235-727-4 12626-81-2 19 Dec 2012 c) Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 Lead monoxide (lead oxide) 215-267-0 1317-36-8 19 Dec 2012 c)

Silicic acid (H2Si2O5), barium salt (1:1), lead-doped [with lead (Pb) content above the applicable generic concentration limit for ’toxicity for reproduction’ Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 272-271-5 68784-75-8 19 Dec 2012 Repr. 1A (CLP) or category 1 (DSD); c) the substance is a member of the group entry of lead compounds, with index number 082-001-00-6 in Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008] Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 Trilead bis(carbonate)dihydroxide 215-290-6 1319-46-6 19 Dec 2012 c) Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 Lead oxide sulfate 234-853-7 12036-76-9 19 Dec 2012 c) Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 Lead titanium trioxide 235-038-9 12060-00-3 19 Dec 2012 c) Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 Acetic acid, lead salt, basic 257-175-3 51404-69-4 19 Dec 2012 c) Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 [Phthalato(2-)]dioxotrilead 273-688-5 69011-06-9 19 Dec 2012 c) Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 Tetralead trioxide sulphate 235-380-9 12202-17-4 19 Dec 2012 c) Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 Dioxobis(stearato)trilead 235-702-8 12578-12-0 19 Dec 2012 c) Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 Tetraethyllead 201-075-4 78-00-2 19 Dec 2012 c) Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 Pentalead tetraoxide sulphate 235-067-7 12065-90-6 19 Dec 2012 c) Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 Trilead dioxide phosphonate 235-252-2 12141-20-7 19 Dec 2012 c) Orange lead (lead tetroxide) 215-235-6 1314-41-6 19 Dec 2012 Toxic for reproduction (Article 57

766

Substance Name EC No. CAS No. Date of Reason for inclusion Inclusion c) Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 Sulfurous acid, lead salt, dibasic 263-467-1 62229-08-7 19 Dec 2012 c) Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 Lead cyanamidate 244-073-9 20837-86-9 19 Dec 2012 c) Toxic for reproduction (Article 57 Lead(II) bis(methanesulfonate) 401-750-5 17570-76-2 18 Jun 2012 c) Toxic for reproduction (article 57 Lead diazide, Lead azide 236-542-1 13424-46-9 19 Dec 2011 c), Toxic for reproduction (article 57 Lead dipicrate 229-335-2 6477-64-1 19 Dec 2011 c) Dichromium tris(chromate) 246-356-2 24613-89-6 19 Dec 2011 Carcinogenic (article 57 a) Pentazinc chromate octahydroxide 256-418-0 49663-84-5 19 Dec 2011 Carcinogenic (article 57 a) Potassium 234-329-8 11103-86-9 19 Dec 2011 Carcinogenic (article 57 a) hydroxyoctaoxodizincatedichromate Toxic for reproduction (article 57 Lead styphnate 239-290-0 15245-44-0 19 Dec 2011 c) Carcinogenic and toxic for Trilead diarsenate 222-979-5 3687-31-8 19 Dec 2011 reproduction (articles 57 a and 57 c) Strontium chromate 232-142-6 7789-06-2 20 Jun 2011 Carcinogenic (article 57a) Acids generated from chromium trioxide and their oligomers. Names of the acids and their oligomers: 231-801-5, 7738-94-5, 15 Dec 2010 Carcinogenic (article 57a) Chromic acid, Dichromic acid, 236-881-5 13530-68-2 Oligomers of chromic acid and dichromic acid. Carcinogenic and mutagenic Chromium trioxide 215-607-8 1333-82-0 15 Dec 2010 (articles 57 a and 57 b) Carcinogenic, mutagenic and Potassium dichromate 231-906-6 7778-50-9 18 Jun 2010 toxic for reproduction (articles 57 a, 57 b and 57 c) Carcinogenic, mutagenic and Ammonium dichromate 232-143-1 7789-09-5 18 Jun 2010 toxic for reproducetion (articles 57 a, 57 b and 57 c) Carcinogenic, mutagenic and Sodium chromate 231-889-5 7775-11-3 18 Jun 2010 toxic for reproduction (articles 57 a, 57 b and 57 c) Carcinogenic and mutagenic Potassium chromate 232-140-5 7789-00-6 18 Jun 2010 (articles 57 a and 57 b). Carcinogenic and toxic for Lead sulfochromate yellow (C.I. 215-693-7 1344-37-2 13 Jan 2010 reproduction (articles 57 a and 57 Pigment Yellow 34) c)) Carcinogenic and toxic for Lead chromate molybdate sulphate 235-759-9 12656-85-8 13 Jan 2010 reproduction (articles 57 a and 57 red (C.I. Pigment Red 104) c) Carcinogenic and toxic for Lead chromate 231-846-0 7758-97-6 13 Jan 2010 reproduction (articles 57 a and 57 c) Carcinogenic and toxic for Lead hydrogen arsenate 232-064-2 7784-40-9 28 Oct 2008 reproduction (articles 57 a and 57 c) Carcinogenic, mutagenic and 7789-12-0, Sodium dichromate 234-190-3 28 Oct 2008 toxic for reproduction (articles 10588-01-9 57a, 57b and 57c)

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 767

Additionally, Member States can register intentions to propose restrictions or to classify substances as SVHC. The first step is to announce such an intention. Once the respective dossier is submitted, it is reviewed and it is decided if the restriction or authorisation process should be further pursued or if the intention should be withdrawn. As at the time of writing (Fall 2015), it cannot yet be foreseen how these procedures will conclude. It is thus not yet possible to determine if the protection afforded by REACH Regulation would in these cases consequently be weakened by approving the exemption requests dealt with in this report. For this reason, the implications of these decisions have not been considered in the review of the exemption requests dealt with in this report. However for the sake of future reviews, the latest authorisation or restriction process results shall be followed and carefully considered where relevant.1958 As for registries of intentions to identify substances as SVHC, as of 28 September 2015, Sweden has submitted intentions regarding the classification of cadmium fluoride and cadmium sulphate as CMR, intending to submit dossiers in August 2014.None of the current registries of intentions to propose restrictions apply to RoHs regulated substances.1959 As for prior registrations of intention, dossiers have been submitted for the substances listed in Table A. 5. Table A. 5: Summary of Substances for which a Dossier has been submitted, following the initial registration of intention Restriction / Substance Name Submission Submitted by Comments SVHC Date Classification Cadmium 17 Jan 2014 Sweden Artist paints and its compounds Amendment of the current restriction (entry 23) on use of paints with TARIC codes [3208] & [3209] containing Cadmium 17 Oct 2013 ECHA cadmium and cadmium and its compounds compounds to include Restriction placing on the market of such paints and a concentration limit. Placing on the market of consumer articles Lead and lead compounds 18 Jan 2013 Sweden containing Lead and its compounds Placing on the market of Chromium VI 20 Jan 2012 Denmark leather articles containing

1958 European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Registry of intentions to propose restrictions: http://echa.europa.eu/registry-of-current-restriction-proposal-intentions/- /substance/1402/search/+/term (28.09.2015) 1959 ECHA website, accessed 28.09.2015: http://echa.europa.eu/web/guest/addressing-chemicals-of- concern/registry-of-intentions

768

Restriction / Substance Name Submission Submitted by Comments SVHC Date Classification Chromium VI Phenylmercuric octanoate; Phenylmercury propionate; Phenylmercury 2-ethylhexanoate; 15 Jun 2010 Norway Mercury compounds Phenylmercury acetate; Phenylmercury Mercury in measuring devices 15 Jun 2010 ECHA Mercury compounds Lead and its compounds in 15 Apr 2010 France Substances containing lead jewellery Cadmium chloride 03 Feb 2014 Sweden CMR; other; Cadmium sulphide 05 Aug 2013 Sweden CMR; other; Lead di(acetate) 05 Aug 2013 Netherlands CMR Cadmium 04 Feb 2013 Sweden CMR; other; Substances containing Cd Cadmium oxide 04 Feb 2013 Sweden CMR; other; Substances Containing Cd Trilead dioxide Phosphonate; Lead Monoxide (Lead Oxide); Trilead bis(carbonate)di- hydroxide; Lead Dinitrate; Lead Oxide Sulphate; Acetic acid, lead salt, basic; Dioxobis(stearato)trilead; Lead bis(tetrafluoroborate); Tetraethyllead; Pentalead tetraoxide sulphate; CMR; substances 30 Aug 2012 ECHA Lead cyanamidate; Containing Lead Lead titanium trioxide; Silicic acid (H2Si2O5), barium salt (1:1), lead-doped; Silicic acid, lead salt; SVHC Sulfurous acid, lead salt, dibasic; Classification Tetralead trioxide sulphate; [Phthalato(2-)]dioxotrilead; Orange lead (lead tetroxide); Fatty acids, C16-18, lead salts; Lead titanium zirconium oxide Lead(II) bis(methanesulfonate) 30 Jan 2012 Netherlands CMR; Amides Lead styphnate; CMR; Substances Lead diazide; Lead azide; 01 Aug 2011 ECHA containing lead Lead dipicrate Trilead diarsenate CMR; Arsenic compounds CMR; Substances Strontium Chromate 24 Jan 2011 France containing chromate Acids generated from chromium trioxide and their oligomers: Chromic acid; CMR; Substances 27 Aug 2010 Germany Dichromic acid; containing chromate Oligomers of chromic acid and dichromic acid CMR; Substances Chromium Trioxide 02 Aug 2010 Germany containing chromate Sodium chromate; CMR; Substances Potassium chromate; 10 Feb 2010 France containing chromate Potassium Dichromate

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 769

Restriction / Substance Name Submission Submitted by Comments SVHC Date Classification Lead chromate molybdate sulfate red (C.I. Pigment Red 104); CMR; substances 03 Aug 2009 France Lead sulfochromate yellow (C.I. Containing Lead Pigment Yellow 34) CMR; Substances Lead Chromate 03 Aug 2009 France containing chromate Lead hydrogen arsenate 27 Jun 2008 Norway CMR; Arsenic compounds CMR; Substances Sodium dichromate 26 Jun 2008 France containing chromate

Concerning the above mentioned processes, as at present, it cannot be foreseen if, or when, new restrictions or identification as SVHC might be implemented as a result of this proposal; its implications have not been considered in the review of the exemption requests dealt with in this report. In future reviews, however, on-going research into restriction and identification as SVHC processes and the results of on-going proceedings shall be followed and carefully considered where relevant.

770

A.4.0 Appendix 4: Exemption 6b

Figure A - 34 -1: Material Data Sheet for Al Alloy 6026 provided by EURAL, 1st Page

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 775

Figure A - 34 -2: Material Data Sheet for Al Alloy 6026 provided by EURAL, 2nd Page

776

Figure A - 34 -3: Technical Laboratory Report of EURAL GNUTTE SpA. on the Manufacture of Brake Pistons

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 777

778

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 779

780

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 781

782

A.7.0 Appendix 7: Cd-based Ink Printing Colours that do not Exist in Cadmium- Free Versions (Ex. 21)

Lists of specific hues submitted by IRL and HGT are both copied below in light of small differences: Source: HGT (2016a), Hecker Glass Technik, Answers to 1st round of clarification questions, submitted per email 18.1.2016

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 807

Source: IRL (2016a), Irlbacher Blickpunkt Glas GmbH, Answers to 1st round of clarification questions, submitted per email 18.1.2016

808

A.8.0 Appendix 8: Leaching Test Results Related to Ex. 29

Test results sent on 26.6.2015 to by EDG to the European Commission, related to the possible leaching of lead from lead crystal.

Study to Assess RoHS Exemptions 809

810